EVE Search - Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 01:42:47 - [1] - Quote Not a sock puppet I fear. Karous, it probably would be more constructive if you considered things more for their merits instead of focusing on whatever you imagine might be posters' internal motivations. Motivational analysis are seldom relevant and always destructive.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 01:57:19 - [2] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: Karous, it probably would be more constructive if you considered things more for their merits instead of focusing on whatever you imagine might be posters' internal motivations. I am considering it based on it's merits(lack thereof), but I refuse to ignore the nonsense tactic you two are using either. Your claim has no merit. His claim is the same. Repeating it does not magically make it true, or your basic points any less wrong. The moon landing actually happened, aliens did not kill JFK, and cloaks do not exist to drive down activity. (only cowardice does that, so maybe we should nerf the thing that enables you to act like such chickens?) Heck, you even admitted that's what you are doing, you expect people to "humor" your lie and shift the discussion around it. And the answer to that is no. You two can either discuss the facts, or keep spamming the same cut and pasted nonsense and get reported for it. Except of course it is not a lie. null sec AFK cloaking is a sov war techique used specifically to increase Eve player attrition (get people to not play Eve). You could argue that its not widespread enough to cause concern or justify changes to specific mechanism used (cloak + cyno potential), or you could suggest that dev's collect data to see how null-sec afk cloaky camping impacts on activity. What you cannot do is dismiss it as a lie. Not without lying at least.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 06:08:05 - [3] - Quote So the consensus then is to ask devs to review if null-sec AFK camping impacts on Eve player attrition?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 15:53:07 - [4] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: So the consensus then is to ask devs to review if null-sec AFK camping impacts on Eve player attrition? Why would they need to? Surely if you repeat that lie a few more times, it will start being at least a little bit true. 5 We have established based on anecdotal evidence that null-sec AFK (enduring) cloaky camping may be a widespread sov war tactic that can have the intent of targeting EVE player activity levels, and may decrease EVE player retention. Dev review of the practice can provide data as basis for determining action. Are there any other objections? Meaning IF the above is true, THEN are you ok with Developers changing or limiting the mechanism (cloak + cyno potential)? IF you are ok with it, THEN all we need is for devs to establish to what degree afk cloaky camping impacts on Eve player retention.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 17:38:55 - [5] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Jerghul wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: So the consensus then is to ask devs to review if null-sec AFK camping impacts on Eve player attrition? Why would they need to? Surely if you repeat that lie a few more times, it will start being at least a little bit true. 5 We have established based on anecdotal evidence that null-sec AFK (enduring) cloaky camping may be a widespread sov war tactic that can have the intent of targeting EVE player activity levels, and may decrease EVE player retention. Dev review of the practice can provide data as basis for determining action. Are there any other objections? Meaning IF the above is true, THEN are you ok with Developers changing or limiting the mechanism (cloak + cyno potential)? IF you are ok with it, THEN all we need is for devs to establish to what degree afk cloaky camping impacts on Eve player retention. I applaud your efforts, but the Devs aren't touching this. People who have tried to get a straight answer on it found out it's like nailing jelly to a wall. If anything happens at all, it's just a mess and you hurt your thumb. The devs, in the form of Fozzie, have acknowledged the situation, and deemed it good. There is no argument to be had here on the grounds that the overall situation is balanced. The only reason I even still reply is because my right to an opinion was attacked, not the conclusion that since the Devs deem it balanced, it's balanced until such time as they change their mind. Nullsec AFK cloaky camping (enduring cloaked presence with cyno potential) does have its good sides. For example it provides leverage to an alliance that is seriously outmatched (it can always disrupt the larger opponent's player activity) and I generally do favour asymmetric mechanisms (something that gives small groups the chance to make a disproportionate impact). (I also generally favour things that make nullsec PVE dangerous and AFK PVE suicidal) The problem is the cost. It increases Eve player attrition (it makes people not play Eve). No one can quantify the cost until the data is examined. But it certainly is higher than none. So to me it has nothing to do with balancing, and everything to do with player retention. I would like the Dev's to reconsider the issue from a player retention perspective.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 18:14:21 - [6] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: ...The only motivation to get rid of AFK cloakers is to ensure they can make piles of money unchallenged; for the AFK cloaker is the only tool left to challenge them with. There are places where you can do that (highsec), so CCP already caters to the crowd. The only interaction to be had with players who, despite this, insist on going to sov null on their own to make even more money and cannot be arsed to defend it, is making them dock up and enjoying the smell of feces wafting from their pants. It is not a sov war tactic -- in fact, all this makes me wonder how exactly did these people claim sov and how much longer do they intend to hold on to it with Fozziesov? The target is clearly not to reduce activity levels; that's the worst possible outcome. The goal is to provoke a response, to challenge ownership of the system and its richess. Just because you're losing that fight and may quit because of that, doesn't mean there is a problem. This is the very nature of EvE: they will either learn to deal with the situation or retreat to a safer area appropriate to the defenses and the numbers they can muster. This could be lowsec, highsec or even wormhole space. Players dropping out of the game because they refuse to adapt, insist on playing alone, and cry on the forums until CCP deprives other players of any chance whatsoever to come out and play with them, are not a bad thing. I'm not encouraging them to leave, but it is a fair question if this is the kind of player we wish to retain? How is he "contributing to the sandbox"? What difference does it make if there's 25k people online or 20k people online, if you never ever get to play with those 5000 you're afraid to lose? Being PvE minded or industry minded is cool; there's a whole world of unarmed player competition going on. Yet giving this one guy a free pass to untold richess hurts them too! How can you reasonably compete to a guy ratting away day and night in a carrier - yes a carrier; without the AFK cloaker, who's going to stop him? And while we've got a good thing going, why stop at one carrier? Just get 3-4 carriers and AFK multibox -- the more profit the merrier right? It is not, and has never been, about the number of subscriptions. Half of the people online may be eyes or links; who cares? What matters, is the pilots you encounter in space or competing on the market or hauling stuff around or scanning down relic sites. But do we really have to go out of our way to please players who choose to sit next to the sandbox? Null-Sec AFK cloaking camping is a sov war technique used specifically to increase hostile player attrition rates. You can discuss how widespread it is, and how dramatically it increases Eve player attrition. But it factually does exist as a technique with the explicit goal of simply trying to get as many players as possible to not log on. I would like the devs to analyse the effects afk (enduring) cloaky-camping (cloak + cyno potential) specifically to determine to what extent the mechanism causes players to leave Eve.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 18:24:36 - [7] - Quote "Actually, you are incorrect on a couple of points. It does not allow little guys to challenge big guys. Big guys don't need a standing fleet to protect from the camper, they already have them to engage overt threats and summoning them is a cyno away. Little guys without that manpower are affected, and never get the chance to grow. Secondly is the idea that they believe predatory PvP to have either a neutral or positive effect on retention." The mechanic is pretty automatic. Do not PVE with reds in system is cardinal eve grunts relate to no matter alliance size. I did not mean to suggest it allows little guys the challenge big guys, but rather cloaky camping gives small guys leverage for diplo efforts mainly. Null-sec cloaky camping is not predatory PvP. Its not even PvP. Its access denial by way of implicit threat where player interaction rarely occurs and actual combat practically never.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 19:14:26 - [8] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: Null-Sec AFK cloaking camping is a sov war technique used specifically to increase hostile player attrition rates. You can discuss how widespread it is, and how dramatically it increases Eve player attrition. But it factually does exist as a technique with the explicit goal of simply trying to get as many players as possible to not log on. I would like the devs to analyse the effects afk (enduring) cloaky-camping (cloak + cyno potential) specifically to determine to what extent the mechanism causes players to leave Eve. Why is "Null-Sec AFK cloaking camping is a sov war technique" suddenly presented as fact? It has been said at least half a dozen times, mostly by the same guy; and it's been denied by pretty much everybody else. If it matters to anyone, can I cast my vote too? NO, I have never seen this technique used in sov warfare. I've only seen it used to hunt -by lack of a better word- carebears in sov null. I have seen cloakies used in highsec, lowsec, NPC null and wormholes, but then they go by different names (eyes, hunter-killers, ...) and those are rarely AFK. When used as campers, they're specifically aimed at disrupting blingy industrial activities. No 'camper' has ever stopped PvP from happening; and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't impeded sov warfare in the slightest. I have obviously seen cloakies used in sov warfare, spread throughout the constellation to look for nodes and monitoring the ingates and hostile staging areas. This practice is not "used specifically to increase hostile player attrition rates" but to direct fleet movements; and this too cannot be considered AFK nor camping. Could you please present a case to back up your claim, before presenting it as a fact and deriving all sorts of conclusions? A particular case I know very well was one I helped design (adding very cheap cloaked ships on a very short training program for alts). I am frankly surprised so many of you are unfamiliar with the technique. Though what I am asking for here is for devs to get proper data on null-sec cloaky camping's impact on player attrition. Anecdotal evidence (be it in favour or against) is really not worth that much.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 19:30:28 - [9] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: Null-sec cloaky camping is not predatory PvP. Its not even PvP. Its access denial by way of implicit threat where player interaction rarely occurs and actual combat practically never. True. Sadly, it is the only remaining option to interact with ratters. The moment you show up in anything else, they're already POSsed by the time you're halfway in warp. But you're right. Maybe we're going about this the wrong way. Perhaps we don't need to nerf cloaks, but instead encourage less lame forms of PvP by promoting actual combat in belts and sites. As it is, being aligned in conjunction with local chat announcing hostile presence is an uncounterable defense (and equally lame at that). Until now I was content with the status-quo; although perhaps you're right. Further adjustment -- read: delayed local chat -- may improve the quality of the encounters. Along with some tweaks on targeting delay after decloak or perhaps a spool-up time on cyno activation; but the general idea still stands. Would need to ponder on that one some more, but you do raise a compelling argument to nerf local. Other option I considered were adding an aggression timer to PvE, similar to a PvP aggression timer that would prevent immediately docking/POSsing up and allow the savvy hunter to bump the target off station ....... but I don't think we need more timers. The easiest mechanics are often the best; ergo: delay local. Problem solved! It would seem the status-quo is too unnerving to maintain; so if nerfing local brings back proper PvP to the belts and sites, then once again I must concede Techos was right. FFFUUUU. (I cannot tell you how much this pains me but the man has a point and he argued it vehemently). Well played, Sir. Logoff traps work, as do shotgun techniques...in addition to counting on finding afk ratters more often than not. Though there has been an increase in legitimate pvp solo-smallgang pvp recently in my corner of space (yay fozziesov). Enduring access denial by way of implicit threat to increase player attrition in the target system remains my issue with cloak+cyno (potential). I am good with anything that fixes that.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 21:17:57 - [10] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: Logoff traps work, as do shotgun techniques...in addition to counting on finding afk ratters more often than not. Though there has been an increase in legitimate pvp solo-smallgang pvp recently in my corner of space (yay fozziesov). Enduring access denial by way of implicit threat to increase player attrition in the target system remains my issue with cloak+cyno (potential). I am good with anything that fixes that. Funny. I used to say that too, some 100 pages ago. Yet, between then and now, I've run into too many deep sov ratters that didn't even bother logging in eyes or anything really. It was appalling. So much bling on DScan, nothing to take home for your trouble. Then we caught ourselves some Paladins and a flock of Retrievers thanks to cloaky camping; about three quarters of them still managed to warp off. Then Mike started talking more and more about ISK and at some point, came right out of the closet and said he lives in friggin' highsec. Then I understood. Yes, shotgunning, wormholes, logoff tricks, ... I was around the entire time these things were brought up. I was in fact the one bringing them up. Only works in Providence though, or against multiboxers taking a quick pee. Counting on finding AFK ratters? That says it all, doesn't it : they can easily factor in losing a few AFKtars and still come out massively ISK positive. No fux given. What we want, is to get some kind of interaction out of these guys. You just can't expect to sit there and get filthy rich. We want to bring some kind of excitement to the game, and some peeps will bring it. Some peeps will not. They will flat out refuse to play with you, so you kind of force the issue by bringing a cloaky camper and eagerly await their next move. In some cases, this next move is demanding CCP to remove the neut from local. LAME. It is a sandbox and how people deal with any given situation is not my freaking problem. It's not like "inactivity" is the only option available. If this is what they choose, then fine - so be it. Not logging in ensures that, eventually, people that DO play will come to said vacant space and perhaps they will play with us. Perhaps we'll take it for ourselves. But do not - repeat, DO NOT - blame us if You don't want to log in because You don't feel secure in "your" space. There is no "issue" here, it's actually really plain and simple: deal with it or leave the space to somebody who can. What, you thought sov null was free ISK? Because a 180 pages down the line, that's what I heard. FYI - if it's just the one guy, I don't even need a cyno. I can kill him perfectly fine all by myself. Shall I tell you what we used to cloaky camp in? Do you really want to know? A helios. No tank, no point, no cyno. Nothing but a dirt cheap Helios. "Enduring access denial by way of implicit threat to increase player attrition in the target system" sounds more expensive than my hull ffs. You can do it cheaper and less skill intensive than a helios. A cloaked venture works fine. Attrition, retention or whatever. It simply is a way of expressing that nullsec sov wars can and do use the potential of cloak+cyno to get people to quit Eve. The combination is a bad game mechanic specifically because cloaky camping can be sustained for days, weeks, months (or hell, why not) years with very little effort. The Devs are trying new paths these days; tossing things out there that they do not know how will work. This is done against the backdrop of 6 week releases where bad mechanisms can be tweaked and corrected quickly. It follows that this can and should be done to legacy issues. A mechanic that is used to lower the number of Eve players is a legacy issue that should be seriously considered.

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 22:54:54 - [11] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Oh, I am sure the devs have had some heated discussions about 'number of players' versus 'the spirit of EvE'. They are quite aware it's not for everyone and people leave when they find the universe too harsh. On the flipside, people will also leave when New Eden turns into a fluffy cuddly themepark. Unless there is a good reason to act, they probably won't. They may change local and/or cloaks if this fits into a larger change (like, for example, changing capitals and citadels as part of a large sov overhaul), but they won't just because from a certain point of view it's "unfair". Change is bad (or so they say). The status quo is bad (or so they say). EvE has been dying for years (or so they say) ..... mutual blueballing is a bad thing, aye. BUT! This is not one of these cases. Not playing is NOT the counter to a camper -- quite the contrary in fact: please do log in, and bring some friends. Being active counters the camper. Not playing is also not a "win" for the camper, but they'll take it as a consolation prize. On a side note, it's not mutual blueballing either. One of both involved parties couldn't give a hoot - he's not even at his keyboard and probably happily blowing up stuff on his main ;-) All this talk about "encouraging people to log off" and "asset denial" is really one sided. That's like, your choice man. You dig? The camper is perhaps not driving conflict, but the mere fact he's effective kind of proves a point: the system was already dead before he even got there. The camper just put the nail in your coffin. I was not making the "unfair" argument. It is not pertinent. Null sec AFK cloaky campers are not system killers. They simply increase player attrition. Or decrease the number of people playing Eve. By design. Pech You don't have to buy it. I merely want Devs to examine data on player attrition in null sec systems targeted by enduring cloaky camps and draw their conclusions from that. Afuran The Eve universe is large enough for devs to get robust data on the effects of cloaky camping. Batting anectdotal evidence back and force is not really a convincing method.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.04 23:40:29 - [12] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Or decrease the number of people playing Eve. By design. You should petition the GMs if the stargates are broken where you live... Just saying. Or I could direct their attention to the game mechanic that is increasing player attrition like I have opted to try and do.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 11:42:02 - [13] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: You don't have to buy it. I merely want Devs to examine data on player attrition in null sec systems targeted by enduring cloaky camps and draw their conclusions from that. It's almost like he thinks that chasing people out of nullsec is not intentionally in the game. He is actually saying much, much more. That not only are people being chased out of NS, but right out of the game by these monstrous AFK campers (I particularly find it amusing it is done with ventures....people, were so wimpy they abandoned their sov instead of trying to find a way to stick it out because of guys cloaked in ventures). Edit: So wimpy, that not only do they abandon their sov to a bunch of guys AFK camping in ventures, they then quit the game while crying into their cheerios....maybe....maybe it is shame though. When they find out how bad they are at the game that they lost their space to a bunch of guys AFK camping them in ventures, they quit out of shame. Clearly we must do SomethingGäó to protect these milquetoasts. A red in local is a red in local Tackos. A cloaked venture is cost- and sp efficient. Afk cloaky camping does not capture sov. It removes content in sov. Giving increased attrition rates (People stop playing Eve). So yah, enduring Cloak+Cyno potential is actually shamefully bad game design. Not anyone's fault. Devs throw things out there, player behaviour molds things tossed out. Devs intervene if things or combinations of things emerge as shamefully bad game design. 6-week release cycles are very elegant.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 13:41:13 - [14] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: You don't have to buy it. I merely want Devs to examine data on player attrition in null sec systems targeted by enduring cloaky camps and draw their conclusions from that. It's almost like he thinks that chasing people out of nullsec is not intentionally in the game. He is actually saying much, much more. That not only are people being chased out of NS, but right out of the game by these monstrous AFK campers (I particularly find it amusing it is done with ventures....people, were so wimpy they abandoned their sov instead of trying to find a way to stick it out because of guys cloaked in ventures). Edit: So wimpy, that not only do they abandon their sov to a bunch of guys AFK camping in ventures, they then quit the game while crying into their cheerios....maybe....maybe it is shame though. When they find out how bad they are at the game that they lost their space to a bunch of guys AFK camping them in ventures, they quit out of shame. Clearly we must do SomethingGäó to protect these milquetoasts. A red in local is a red in local Tackos. A cloaked venture is cost- and sp efficient. Afk cloaky camping does not capture sov. It removes content in sov. Giving increased attrition rates (People stop playing Eve). So yah, enduring Cloak+Cyno potential is actually shamefully bad game design. Not anyone's fault. Devs throw things out there, player behaviour molds things tossed out. Devs intervene if things or combinations of things emerge as shamefully bad game design. 6-week release cycles are very elegant. You do realize that covert ops cyno is designed to be just that, cloak+cyno? It is made to be a cloaky way of getting around camps and blockades so you cannot just be safe behind a wall. Yes, I am quite aware that specialized ships are designed to use the cloak+cyno combination. The core problem is the enduring nature of the current mechanism. An afk cloaky camper (with an implicit cyno) can remove content in a system for days, weeks, months, (or hell, why not) years. Which naturally and obviously increases Eve player attrition. Fuel consumption and jump fatigue do not address the issue because increased player attrition is caused by implicit cynos (the threat of a cyno being there), not actual ones being used. So of course it is natural to think of a solution along the lines of cloak fatigue, and/or cloak fuel consumption.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 14:12:32 - [15] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: An afk cloaky camper (with an implicit cyno) can remove content in a system for days, weeks, months, (or hell, why not) years. No, they cannot. They can't do anything, activate any module while cloaked. The only thing that removes content is the kind of cowardice that makes you refuse to play the game at all unless you have zero risk. And CCP should never change one thing about the game for that reason. I think my point on "implicit" as part of the core issue explains why not activating modules while cloaked is not pertinent to the argument. I do agree with your underlying sentiment, but with the caveat of pointing out that it is hard to think of any playing style more risk adverse than afk cloaky camping (even a player permanently based at Jiita has the risk of being scammed if he or she not careful). Which is why my preferred solutions introduce occasional windows for potential direct pvp interaction. It gives afk cloaky camping some element of risk attached to it.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 14:51:07 - [16] - Quote Brokk Conversely, you could say that 1 afk cloaky camper has as much business permanently removing content from an entire system, as a slasher does running incursions. But I would prefer keeping the normative (what should be) issues to the simple question of determining the degree of player attrition and for developers to determine if that level is acceptable, or if corrective measures need to be taken. Which is ultimately what you are asking for (even if I were to provide examples of alliances in say the Brave collective losing swaths of members and dramatic drops in activity before losing sov over in Catch, it would still remain anecdotal and the cause effects unclear). Kaarous You are familiar with forum rules I trust? Please try to focus on the topic at hand.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 15:12:55 - [17] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: Brokk Conversely, you could say that 1 afk cloaky camper has as much business permanently removing content from an entire system, as a slasher does running incursions. But I would prefer keeping the normative (what should be) issues to the simple question of determining the degree of player attrition and for developers to determine if that level is acceptable, or if corrective measures need to be taken. So what you're saying basically boils down to "we can all stop discussing until a bluepost shows us some numbers" ? As for Catch .... Infamous lives there now, and they're defending it quite nicely. Survival of the fittest at its finest. Infamous undocks. And as for "1 afk cloaky camper has as much business permanently removing content from an entire system, as a slasher does running incursions" ..... that's a load of baloney. 1 Cloaky camper has as much business being AFK as a trader sitting in Jita. FTFY. But, all good man. I'll refrain from discussing the topic until CCP comes up with the numbers. Its more a question of accepting that null sec afk-cloaky camping may negatively effect Eve player retention and think it fine that the developers look into it. If we can accept that is true, then of course it is entirely possible to move on and talk about what measures might be appropriate if dev action were to be taken.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 15:21:30 - [18] - Quote Here is one suggestion then. Cloaks need to be recharged occasionally and are recharged by being in proximity (within 2000 m) of a gate, station, or pos (or citadels for that matter). The idea is to have a non-intrusive way of ensuring the possibility of interaction in a manner that only effects players with afk type behaviour.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 16:39:31 - [19] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Do you guys have any idea how savage a nerf anoms would take for this? And besides that, CCP will have exactly no sympathy for people not prepared to move systems. Not even high sec miners have that level of entitlement lol The trend in Sov is for Devs to allow groups of any size to effectively interact for control. AFK cloaky camping in its current incarnation provides no basis for interaction while undermining sovereignty by excluding it from use and increasing player attrition (the idea in general is for sov to be a scalable function of group size and activity. Which is generally true, and is why afk cloaky camping is particularly effective. It destroys activity and group sizes).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.05 16:59:25 - [20] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: It's effective if you're a pussy. Its more that afk cloaky camping requires very little resources and provides no basis for player interaction. Its anathema to the trend in sov space development.

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 02:16:22 - [21] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: Its more a question of accepting that null sec afk-cloaky camping may negatively effect Eve player retention and think it fine that the developers look into it. I can, with as much or more validity, say that highsec missions and mining negatively effect EVE player retention. (And I'd probably be right, given CCP's own numbers on the matter) And since highsec has more population, the effect on retention would be decidedly more pronounced. So should we have CCP "look into" deleting highsec? But of course you'll try to handwave that away. Its more outside the scope of discussion (see thread title) than something I would be dismissive of without knowing in detail what you were speaking of. I probably would argue for less intrusive interventions than "deleting highsec" if I were ever to become involved in such a debate and decided your position had some merit.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 03:10:10 - [22] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: any word on those numbers yet? I have no friggin' clue where to pull those from; so I'll have to work with whatever you come up with ..... Dotlan can give you anecdotal evidence, but nothing conclusive. Perhaps the best way to convince yourself one way or the other is to simply try the technique yourself the next time you are involved in a null-sec sov war. Just chose a system you know an alliance is using as their main base, then see what happens to activity in that system, and what happens to their member count (you can follow up individual pilots too on zkill). However, you would only convince yourself. Hence my thinking devs should pull the relevant data and see if there is grounds for concern.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 04:04:12 - [23] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So, you're openly admitting that you have no proof of any of your claims? And you expect CCP to do anything based entirely on your suppositions? Your wild guessing? Your opinionated, self serving claims? The sheer freaking hubris. Like all of us here, I come to the table armed with opinion fuelled by anecdotal evidence. I do however believe that the analytical argument is solid enough to warrant closer examination by CCP developers (who can generate robust data).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 04:13:59 - [24] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: Like all of us here, I come to the table armed with opinion fuelled by anecdotal evidence. Heh, don't make false equivalencies. Your agenda driven suppositions are not sufficient reason for them to do anything. Nor are Mike's repeated, tearful entreaties that him having any risk equates to a game imbalance. I am not sure what ulterior motives you might be suggesting I have. My argument has also been based on the core problem is caused by the game mechanism that allows sustained afk cloaky camping indefinitely without any player interaction or risk. I would hesitate more invoking the desire for risk free activity in Eve argument, when that is precisely what you are trying to protect.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 04:28:19 - [25] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: See, you, I and anyone else can "claim" whatever we want about sub numbers, unsubs, and all that **. But absolutely nothing you say creates any kind of imperative for study on CCP's part. First of all, they already track unsubs and the reasons for such. And they have repeatedly told a number of people to get bent for peddling precisely this kind of alarmism. (Falcon is on record for doing that a lot recently, in fact) Not only will they do nothing, they should do nothing. I have not made any claims about subscription numbers beyond pointing out that game mechanisms that allow for player triggered risk free removal of content from systems increases Eve player attrition. I have suggested concretely that the likelihood of this being true suggests developers collect the data to see if it warrants changes to certain mechanisms. I cannot see why my position is unreasonable in any way. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote:** I am not sure what ulterior motives you might be suggesting I have. Not ulterior at all, you and Mike have both stated your goals. See my post above. I want developers to consider if changes to certain mechanisms are warranted. I have no firm goals beyond that point.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 06:16:44 - [26] - Quote Broc I think I was clear that I am describing a null-sec sov war technique that uses enduring, risk free afk cloaky camping to deny PVE content in a system in order to increase player attrition in the alliance holding that system. So indeed, it is a problem for a specific group by definition. I should hasten to add that the core problem is lack of player interaction and lack of risk because the threat is implicit (hence my using the term implicit cyno. A physical cyno is not required, nor is any player interaction desirable). I should also clarify that the targets are pvp alliances engaged in sov warfare as that was not clearly understood. I am really astonished that so few posters here seem familiar with the technique, though perhaps its mostly that they do not recognize it for what it is (they mistakenly believe it to be economic warfare to use cloaky campers to stop PvE activity in a system). There is no counter to an enduring implicit threat of this type. Anything you try will give you very blueballs. The whole key to the technique is removing content. so engaging in any way is counter productive. Not engaging is the whole point. Like you said: "then we have a problem". I am not saying its unbalanced, I am saying it increases player attrition in the staging system in question. I would not dare to quantify by how much. Let me underline again in response to your last post on why no one comes to the rescue. Because there is generally no one to rescue, and if there was, there would be no one to rescue them from. Because the threat is implicit, not physical. You have seen implicit threats before. The implicit threat of hotdropping supers dominated fleet tactics for a long time. Cue jump fatigue.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 06:25:14 - [27] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Its more a question of accepting that null sec afk-cloaky camping may negatively effect Eve player retention and think it fine that the developers look into it. Jergens-Hand-Lotion, There you go again, that AFK cloaking not only leads to less people being online, but that they quite. But you have no evidence of this. I have already pointed out that a player who is PvP oriented has the option of leaving a ***** group of players and finding one that wont buckle under the stress of some impotent cloaked ventures. The die hard carebear can always retreat toHS and run missions and mine there. Personally I find the claim risible. "Oh no...AFK cloakers killed my alliance! I must quit the game." vs. Finding a better alliance that can handle such a challenge, Just settling into HS and making do with that. Yep....load of horseshit in an attempt to get a self-serving change pushed through. Can you guys learn to spell my name right for a ****** change? Sorry about misspelling your name :). Do I seriously seem more like a victim than a perpetrator?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 06:37:51 - [28] - Quote "Can you or can you not give us an example of AFK cloaking being the sharp tip of a sov war spear?" Can I find examples of alliances I know have been subject to AFK camping and show they lost a lot of members when that happened? Sure. God invented Dotlan for purposes like that. Would that be meaningful? Nope. Tell you what, lets pretend I did that, and you can immediately start on why player loss was actually due to other things, and besides, how many have actually left Eve, and do you know for sure they are not just taking a break anyway etc? It would save me the wasted effort.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 12:19:05 - [29] - Quote Mag's wrote: Well I give Jerghul his due, that's a new bit of Bravo Sierra to throw into the debate. So over the last few pages he's been trying to claim this affects player retention, without any proof whatsoever? And Mike has still been on his invulnerability line? Even though that's a two way street. But let's ignore one of the ways and simply focus on the cloaker? I must say, it's all very interesting stuff. Please, do continue. It effects player retention (have more than 0 players quit Eve for lack of usable content in 0-sec systems?). The only question is to what degree. The degree of course is what should determine the level of Dev intervention.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 12:22:01 - [30] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Mag's wrote: Well I give Jerghul his due, that's a new bit of Bravo Sierra to throw into the debate. So over the last few pages he's been trying to claim this affects player retention, without any proof whatsoever? And Mike has still been on his invulnerability line? Even though that's a two way street. But let's ignore one of the ways and simply focus on the cloaker? I must say, it's all very interesting stuff. Please, do continue. Except that the guy who docks and gives up his play to avoid a hunter wasn't invulnerable. He lost. He conceeded his opportunity to fight in order to mitigate the loss of a battle that he judged could not be won. Now the cloak denies him an opportunity of a fight more equal, and continues to enforce his loss indefinitely. He can't reship and try again. What opportunity to fight? You cannot fight a cloaked ship with an implicit cyno. Nor could you possibly call the afk camper a "hunter".

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 12:28:02 - [31] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Here's a non anecdotal thought to consider. If this is so powerful and makes people quit, why have MOA not shattered the CFC yet? Now consider that this has not happened directly shows us that being "affected" by cloakers is a mindset and player choice. Perhaps then sov null teaches us only the strong who are prepared to fight for their empire survive. That those who don't, who cower at the possibility of a fight, who run from the mere whisper of a faceless boogieman are ran out of their area. Sounds a lot like it's working as intended to me. Of course passive, contact adverse, content removing, 0-risk, and "no-cost" afk cloaky camping with an implicit cyno works to increase attrition as intended. If it didn't work, people would not do it.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 12:34:05 - [32] - Quote "What you should be lobbying for is not more, and more lopsided, ways to force people to play as your targets. You should be lobbying for development of the game to give your targets something worth fighting for. Then, when they do try and fight for them, try actually fighting." Cloaky afk camping with an implicit cyno is not PvP by design. The goal is to destroy activity, not ships. I am lobbying for more, and more lopsided ways to force people to play as targets by wanting more small mandatory windows with pvp opportunity inserted into any afk cloaky camping sequence.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 12:57:46 - [33] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: You are making the assumption that people are quitting an alliance or even the game over not being able to do PVP in 100% safety. There is no way to prove that . There are far more important reasons for alliances fail-cascading than having a neutral in a ratting-system. There are ways to prove that. Insert a red or neut into local, monitor what happens, compare what happened to a baseline. PvE is not less safe (in fact it might be more safe as roaming small gangs and true hot droppers might also spend less time in an afk cloaky camped system). Enduring afk cloaky camping with an implicit cyno never generates PvP. PvP is not its goal. It creates the perception of risk to reduce activity. Mag's I know anecdotal evidence is far from robust. Hence my recommending that Devs collect relevant data before deciding if intervention is required.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 16:05:50 - [34] - Quote The forum section is really supposed weighted towards ideas anyway. But you should get where I am coming from now. I am looking for a relatively non-intrusive modification to the mechanics that imposes windows of potential vulnerability on cloaked vessels. Something like this would be ideal: IF a cloaked vessel does not do something that the vast majority of cloak users do anyway within a given time-frame, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done. Lets define the time frame as about 2 hours: IF a cloaked vessel does not do something that the vast majority of cloak users do anyway within 120 minutes, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done. Now for something. Dock up. Ok, many cloaked ships might dock up more than once every 120 minutes. But some may not. Dock up, be within 2000 m of a POS. There we have caught more, but lets simplify: Be within 2000 m of a POS or Station, or outpost/citadelle Probably still missing someone, so lets toss in gates too. Be within 2000 m of a POS or Station, or outpost/citadelle, or gate of any type. IF a cloaked vessel is not within 2000 m of a POS, Station, Citadelle, or Gate after a cloak has operated for a total of 120 minutes, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done and the cloak is recharged. What does that do exactly? It creates small windows in an afk cloaky camping regime were player interaction (PvP) can occur. Is that what I wanted? Yes.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 17:56:54 - [35] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: The forum section is really supposed weighted towards ideas anyway. But you should get where I am coming from now. I am looking for a relatively non-intrusive modification to the mechanics that imposes windows of potential vulnerability on cloaked vessels. Something like this would be ideal: IF a cloaked vessel does not do something that the vast majority of cloak users do anyway within a given time-frame, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done. Lets define the time frame as about 2 hours: IF a cloaked vessel does not do something that the vast majority of cloak users do anyway within 120 minutes, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done. Now for something. Dock up. Ok, many cloaked ships might dock up more than once every 120 minutes. But some may not. Dock up, be within 2000 m of a POS. There we have caught more, but lets simplify: Be within 2000 m of a POS or Station, or outpost/citadelle Probably still missing someone, so lets toss in gates too. Be within 2000 m of a POS or Station, or outpost/citadelle, or gate of any type. IF a cloaked vessel is not within 2000 m of a POS, Station, Citadelle, or Gate after a cloak has operated for a total of 120 minutes, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done and the cloak is recharged. What does that do exactly? It creates small windows in an afk cloaky camping regime where player interaction (PvP) can occur. Is that what I wanted? Yes. What it does is completely break wormholes, but f**k those guys right? So long as anomaly squatters are 100% safe, it's all good, right? Man up, or get back to the shallow end of the pool. Ironically, those areas don't have this problem because they're LESS risk averse. Ironic. I fail to see how it breaks wormholes, or provide 100% safety to anom squaters. And indeed. By creating small windows in an afk cloaking regime where player interaction (PvP) can occur is meant to have afk cloakers (with an implicit cyno) either man up or get back to the shallow end of the pool.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 18:02:49 - [36] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's because you have no idea about the mechanics you're trying to "fix", sorry, break would be more accurate. Nor any idea of how other parts of space work. Well, nothing you have suggested indicates the windows are particularly intrusive in any sector of space. I fear you have to be more concrete to make your point.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 18:11:28 - [37] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's because you have no idea about the mechanics you're trying to "fix", sorry, break would be more accurate. Nor any idea of how other parts of space work. Well, nothing you have suggested indicates the windows are particularly intrusive in any sector of space. I fear you have to be more concrete to make your point. Go find me ANY of the things you want to make people "get near" in a shattered wormhole. Ah, right. We can add wormholes. Thank you. IF a cloaked vessel is not within 2000 m of a POS, Station, Citadelle, Gate or Wormhole after a cloak has operated for a total of 120 minutes, THEN the cloak will cease to function until that operation is done and the cloak is recharged.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 18:21:19 - [38] - Quote Morrigan Just view it as a type of heat damage that is repaired by doing certain operations (being close to something that non sustained cloaky afk players are usually close to anyway in a given time-frame).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 18:25:20 - [39] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: No. Because your idea just breaks whole areas of space for a complete non-problem. Again, you would need to elaborate to bring your point across on the "breaking whole areas of space bit".
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 18:34:38 - [40] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Say Jerghul... I Just did a little background check on ZKill (yes, I intend to investigate your claims and I started with trying to find what war you were in). I am having severe issues with your credibility, however. Could you please post on your main if you wish to continue spilling theorycraft? Because this "Jerghul" character hasn't been in any sov war, hardly plays (with like 16 bil killed) at all and doesn't show any cloaky anywhere. T1 Destroyers and Maulus? Do you even wormhole?? This is my main. I currently do 90% of my flying in a cloaked ship :). I could contract you some t-3 bps I suppose if that helps. And how do you figure I have not been in sov wars? But its not really about credibility. We sort of resolved that point by resting on "this is something the Devs should collect data on before deciding a course of action" (or words to that effect).

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 19:08:15 - [41] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: as far as I'm concerned the devs need not waste their time. I think they're keeping a close eye on who's leaving the game and why anyway. Regarding cloaked Ventures claiming sov I think I've heard enough. Boy, a lot is certainly lost in translation. Increased player attrition is caused by implicit threat. The only thing required is an enduring cloaked red (or neut depending on how you set the overview) presence in local. It does not claim sov. It impacts on the number of Eve players an Alliance has at its disposal
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 19:46:49 - [42] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: as far as I'm concerned the devs need not waste their time. I think they're keeping a close eye on who's leaving the game and why anyway. Regarding cloaked Ventures claiming sov I think I've heard enough. Boy, a lot is certainly lost in translation. Increased player attrition is caused by implicit threat. The only thing required is an enduring cloaked red (or neut depending on how you set the overview) presence in local. It does not claim sov. It impacts on the number of Eve players an Alliance has at its disposal Not if it's a PvP alliance. Your entire premise is faulty. Demonstrably so by the success of the CFC, for one. Also if it is a PvP alliance. And particularly within a framework where sov control is made manifest by PvE activity (it is how the sov mechanism is set up). Increased player attrition also does not contradict the relative successes and failures of alliances engaged in Sov warfare. It merely causes less player involvement. But again. This is a sidetrack. Its a dev decision to determine if the player attrition impact is significant enough to warrant intervention. Though a precautionary approach is always prudent in any event. The issue we should be discussing is what might be the least intrusive intervention we can devise.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 19:55:51 - [43] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: The issue we should be discussing is what might be the least intrusive intervention we can devise. 1) Remove local. But you won't accept that because "risk" so... 2) Cloaked players do not appear in local. Issue resolved all uses of cloaking preserved. Although doubtless not to the satisfaction of the risk averse bears. I am in principle fine with that solution. Or rather make local coms subject to entosis action where applicable. But it hardly qualifies as least intrusive by any definition of the term. I would chose to consider that a separate and distinct topic worthy of its own thread given the extent it would impact on the game. So not pertinent to the discussion here as it rests outside of the scope.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 20:27:24 - [44] - Quote Brokk I just have to ask. You do understand that afk cloaky camping can go on forever with absolutely no risk, right? You issue is more with the "so what?" portion than it is with the actual premise I just phrased?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:16:43 - [45] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Making cloaks huntable would create more PvP This is one of your staple lies. You say this bull in every thread. "Hey guys, this savage nerf to the mechanic enabling non consensual PvP would totally lead to more PvP and not more blatant carebearing" No believes you. I think the argument is more that there should be an mechanism for enabling non-consensual PvP with cloaked ships. I know that is my position on enduring afk cloaking techniques. There should be a mechanism making cloaked ships used that way vulnerable to player interaction ever so often. Teckos I actually only need the developers to look into their data. Our opinions and anecdotal evidence in favour or against is on its own very unconvincing. As the 1000ds of posts in this thread show. Brott Same response as given Teckos I suppose. I have not seen anything in the responses so far that suggest my opinion is incorrect. I quite liked the potential of my suggestion. Beams indicating recharging cloaking devices in circardian seeker type fashion off various space structures would be visually stunning. I will work on it a bit more and think of variants now that I have identified the design criteria. Thanks for your input.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:21:21 - [46] - Quote "No Mike, if I am cloaky camping you so long as I maintain that "invulnerable" state you are, by definition, invulnerable too from attacks from me. Only when I make my self vulnerable are you also vulnerable. That is what Mag's is saying." He is not invulnerable to the unquantifiable, implicit threat you represent. Which is not a problem except you are given all the time in the world to maintain that implicit threat. A window of vulnerability every now and again would be nice. Risk free is a bit blah really.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:26:08 - [47] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: I think the argument is more that there should be an mechanism for enabling non-consensual PvP with cloaked ships. There already are. Mike just can't be asked to put that effort out. Which makes sense, considering he's constantly arguing for afk ratting, afk mining, and afk hauling. Here's the thing though. You absolutely do not get anything that denies the cloaked ship his right to target selection. That is the only point of the cloaking device in the first place, and you do not get to argue for invalidating it's intended design purpose. TL;DR? Grow a pair and bait him, decloak and catch him on the gate before he gets imbedded(you know, actually defend your space instead of just afk ratting all day) or ignore him. Quote: I quite liked the potential of my suggestion. Your suggestion would basically cripple the whole point of cloaking devices. I suspect you know that full well. There is nothing in my suggestion that impacts on a cloaked ships right to chose targets. All it does is create windows where a ship occassionally needs to drop its cloak to replenish it at any number of convenient locations.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:29:52 - [48] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: You call that a "SLIGHT MODIFICATION" ?!?!?!! It is by far the most intrusive idea anyone has come up with so far?! What part of 'operating for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines' also knows as 'recons / black ops' am I missing here? None. It does nothing to hinder "operations for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines" All you need to do is occasionally open a small window of vulnerability from time to time to recharge the cloak at any of a large number of convenient locations. You can still log off and return the next day and all that. It amazes me that so many of you have trouble understanding rather easy concepts.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:31:37 - [49] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Say Jerghul... I Just did a little background check on ZKill (yes, I intend to investigate your claims and I started with trying to find what war you were in). I am having severe issues with your credibility, however. Could you please post on your main if you wish to continue spilling theorycraft? Because this "Jerghul" character hasn't been in any sov war, hardly plays (with like 16 bil killed) at all and doesn't show any cloaky anywhere. T1 Destroyers and Maulus? Do you even wormhole?? I stopped reading here to post. Prediction: no reply. I have been asking for this for awhile now, but to no avail. There is no credibility issue here. Its the concepts that bother you, not the person presenting them. As it should be, so why make it about the man?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:32:29 - [50] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: There is nothing in my suggestion that impacts on a cloaked ships right to chose targets. Aaaaaand you're trolling. Thanks for playing. Quote: All it does is create windows where a ship occassionally needs to drop its cloak to replenish it at any number of convenient locations. Why don't you just suggest they explode outright? The whole point of cloaked ships is to reward patience with the ability to attack targets of opportunity. Your change would cripple cloaking devices on every level, in every part of space. There are not enough languages to say no in. Boy are you risk adverse.

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:43:52 - [51] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Brokk I just have to ask. You do understand that afk cloaky camping can go on forever with absolutely no risk, right? You issue is more with the "so what?" portion than it is with the actual premise I just phrased? If you never attack and rely only on an "implicit" threat it is an empty threat. You simply cannot gain a major advantage in a sov war with a fleet of cloaking ventures that never attack. My argument was never that you rely only on implicit threats to gain a major advantage. It impacts only on activity levels. You know the dynamics of sov warfare. All systems are frequently attacked (harassed).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.06 23:48:26 - [52] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: You call that a "SLIGHT MODIFICATION" ?!?!?!! It is by far the most intrusive idea anyone has come up with so far?! What part of 'operating for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines' also knows as 'recons / black ops' am I missing here? None. It does nothing to hinder "operations for prolonged periods of time behind enemy lines" All you need to do is occasionally open a small window of vulnerability from time to time to recharge the cloak at any of a large number of convenient locations. You can still log off and return the next day and all that. It amazes me that so many of you have trouble understanding rather easy concepts. There are vast stretches of space where there are no stations, or one does not have docking rights, or even a friendly POS. So, in those instances it is a hindrance. Stations, POSs, gates, citadelles, wormholes. Proximity, you dont have to dock. But lets change POSs to POS forcefields you can syphon the recharge off. I am really not trying to make this difficult. I just want a few windows of potential vulnerability every now and then. The real risk does not have to be high at all. It just has to be.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 00:03:41 - [53] - Quote Teckos You are really not understanding this. Increasing player attrition does not in itself win wars, and cannot in itself avert defeat. I am quite tempted to give you the name of, if not the architect, at least the alliance leader who formulated that the goal of afk cloaky camping was to get the enemy to stop logging on (I remember the TS moment quite well). I have long parted ways with that person, but I am still uncomfortable sharing that information. As to what wars...well, you have my character information. When and where do you think it was? Recharging is meant to cause a window of vulnerability every now and then. I was thinking a recharge time measured in seconds, not minutes. But perhaps an out of the way POS shield would be a better recharge spot, than a heavily trafficked gate? Up to the fellow flying the cloaked vessel and the calls he makes I suppose.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 00:28:44 - [54] - Quote Brokk It is often considered good form to debate the topic, and not the man. Mags Describing it as a psy-ops covers it nicely. Local conveys the information. Removing local is a bit outside the scope of this thread I think. Teckos It was a contextual response to a poster who had numerous times rather unpleasantly commented on the risk averse (thank you - feel free to ask me any time you need help with your Norwegian) nature of some types of PvE players. But you are right, I should have refrained from making that snide remark. Edit Again: "You are really not understanding this. Increasing player attrition does not in itself win wars, and cannot in itself avert defeat." How in God's name are you reading this to mean tip of the spear? Its just a technique used to diminish activity levels. Nothing more, nothing less. Its used in most sov wars; usually understood as a means to limit isk generation, but its actual impact rests in player attrition. Which some people understand better than others.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 00:38:26 - [55] - Quote Mag's wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Describing it as a psy-ops covers it nicely. Local conveys the information. Removing local is a bit outside the scope of this thread I think. Seeing as AFKing relies upon local, it's fully inside the scope of this thread. So don't we need to look at both? I know many here wish to only nerf cloaks, but I have to be honest and say that's not a balanced approach. It impacts too widely on too many things to be considered part of this thread imo. But noting that removing local may resolve issues is of course valid. Discussing it in length would be a side track.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 00:48:02 - [56] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: "It is often considered good form to debate the topic, and not the man." Let's just say I was trying to get it through your head you have credibility issues, by lack of facts, numbers, examples, basic game mechanics or just about everything except hot air. That, we have in abundance. It is neither portrait, name or native language that's under fire. It IS the things you say. Nothing personal. We keep asking to cut to the chase but you're not going to deliver, are you? You want us to guess where you were? You want us to fill in the blanks in your argument? Another way of putting it would be "pics or it didn't happen". My money is on "it didn't happen" FYI. *grabs popcorn I certainly did not take it personally. I am not here to tutor people on the finer points of Eve after all. I do understand that I risk losing people by the wayside any time the word "implicit" is important to the argument :). Let it suffice to say that Eve is a complex game that can be understood on many levels. Its not a credibility issue, nor a force of personality one. Opinion based on anecdotal evidence can be verified as you should know; I have mentioned it several times.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 01:13:38 - [57] - Quote Mag's wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mag's wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Describing it as a psy-ops covers it nicely. Local conveys the information. Removing local is a bit outside the scope of this thread I think. Seeing as AFKing relies upon local, it's fully inside the scope of this thread. So don't we need to look at both? I know many here wish to only nerf cloaks, but I have to be honest and say that's not a balanced approach. It impacts too widely on too many things to be considered part of this thread imo. But noting that removing local may resolve issues is of course valid. Discussing it in length would be a side track. Seeing as it's part and parcel of AFKing, it's on track in regards to this thread. I know you and many others wish to dismiss it and simply focus on cloaks, but that's not a balanced approach. You do know you can AFK without a cloak and still gain the same effect? That alone should speak volumes. Mags I do know that. My concern relates mostly to the enduring nature of afk cloaky camping. I am proposing mainly that windows of vulnerability occur occasionally. =========== Lets try this. A cloaked vessel needs to decloak occasionally so that its cloak can recharge. Recharging occurs any time the cloak module is inactive (so would also be recharged while gate cloaked). The cloak can only recharge within 5 AU of a gate or wormhole. It need not be fully recharged (so a blockade runner doing its milk runs would always be topped up. For example).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 01:31:47 - [58] - Quote Mags I really do not understand why having to decloak occasionally at a time and place more or less under the cloaked ship's control breaks anything. All it does is add small windows where unsolicited pvp might possibly occur.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 02:12:36 - [59] - Quote Mags I think I will jot down "break" as hyperbole. Brokk Not logging on is the best way to remain undetected for long periods of time. As is logging off if something turns up in real life. The inconvenience otherwise to having small windows of potential vulnerability could easily be justified by the simple adage that nothing need be absolutely safe or convenient once you chose to undock. I should perhaps outline what I mean A charged cloak could have a 6 hour charge for all I care. The problem I see is perpetual invulnerability. The recharge windows need not be frequent. Something in the region of 30 minutes being recharged every 30 seconds the cloak module is not active is fine. Small, occasional windows. Enough to warrant an occasional hunt, but with low actual chance of success.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 09:09:31 - [60] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags I think I will jot down "break" as hyperbole. Brokk Not logging on is the best way to remain undetected for long periods of time. As is logging off if something turns up in real life. The inconvenience otherwise to having small windows of potential vulnerability could easily be justified by the simple adage that nothing need be absolutely safe or convenient once you chose to undock. I should perhaps outline what I mean A charged cloak could have a 6 hour charge for all I care. The problem I see is perpetual invulnerability. The recharge windows need not be frequent. Something in the region of 30 minutes being recharged every 30 seconds the cloak module is not active is fine. Small, occasional windows. Enough to warrant an occasional hunt, but with low actual chance of success. They are right on this, Jerguhl. Timers are unsuitable to the problem at hand. As has been discussed in the thread numerous times... Any timer short enough to be reasonable for making cloaks huntable would break almost any other use of the cloak other than camping at a deep safe. I would consider reasonable no longer than 15 minutes because... Any timer too long will leave us in exactly the same place. You might get the very rare case where someone's random frustration check coincided with the once in 6 hours window of vulnerability, but for the most part no one is going to make any kind of regular effort to hunt something when they have to continually scan for long periods of time just on the off chance that they get something. This is more true the shorter the window of vulnerability is. You think it's reasonable that someone looking to defend their system do nothing but scan for 30 minutes at a time, and if they ever stop they stand a really good chance of missing their 30 second window of opportunity? Frequency or duration of vulnerability need to be sufficient to catch them, and doing that breaks any use the cloak has other than camping under it. The reason I suggested and support a system of false positives for scanning cloaks is because the cloak should start with a high degree of safety, that is then degraded by active effort of the systems defenders. The cloaker can slow their progress by taking action of his own, but if afk eventually that safety will degrade and he will be caught. The hunting and evading ideally would depend on a combination of luck and skill, until the situation resolves. Such a system allows long windows of opportunity for other uses of the cloak without leaving a cloaked camp that snuck in at 3am when the defenders of the system are normally asleep to be permanently entrenched until such time as they choose to leave or attack, while still affecting activity in the system due to response to their presence. I happen to agree that if you are going to be gone longer than a few minutes then logging off should be your best option if you are in open space. The entire beef that brought about afk cloaking was the idea that if you go hunting you have a reasonable shot at a target. That should either apply to everybody, in which case you are being hunted and your hunters deserve a chance at catching you... or nobody, in which case afk cloak camping is not a reasonable hunting technique. Thanks for the feedback. Timers suit what I am trying to fix I think. In a sov war context, content is often created by a sense of purpose, and not necessarily what is rational isk/hour considerations. The possibility of catching an afk cloaky camper is enough to suit my purposes. The chance does not have to be particularly realistic. And I think we know that human error will cause most afk cloaky camper losses. There is a timer and the afk bit will lead to the occasional screw-up as timers run out and afk cloaky campers become afk ratters without rats. Here was my updated variant as of last night. "Recharge on structure" changed to proximity within 5 AU of a gate or wormwhole (which is still proximity I suppose). "A cloaked vessel needs to decloak occasionally so that its cloak can recharge. Recharging occurs any time the cloak module is inactive (so would also be recharged while gate cloaked). The cloak can only recharge within 5 AU of a gate or wormhole. It need not be fully recharged (so a blockade runner doing its milk runs would always be topped up. For example)."

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 09:28:10 - [61] - Quote Lets see, another possible intervention is to simply turn afk cloaky camping into a PvE problem. Circardian seekers seem to have pretty advanced scanning equipment. Scripting them to awkwardly scan down cloaked ships and awkwardly aggress cloaked ships would suit my purposes too. It would again be visually stunning (imagine their scanning rays pointing off in space, then gradually triangulating before they finally warp off towards something. Brave scavengers that try to follow might be rewarded with the smoking wreck of what once was an afk cloaky camper).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 15:53:24 - [62] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Lets see, another possible intervention is to simply turn afk cloaky camping into a PvE problem. Circardian seekers seem to have pretty advanced scanning equipment. Scripting them to awkwardly scan down cloaked ships and awkwardly aggress cloaked ships would suit my purposes too. It would again be visually stunning (imagine their scanning rays pointing off in space, then gradually triangulating before they finally warp off towards something. Brave scavengers that try to follow might be rewarded with the smoking wreck of what once was an afk cloaky camper). Yet another inspired way to completely break cloaking. Bravo. And if you have to ask why, you have exactly no business in this thread. You nail it with "suit MY purposes" though, I'll give you that. Its actually just a variant of being able to track down cloaked ships at least when modified as follows: Seekers, Drifters and the aptly named Jovian Observatories have advanced sensors and the innate ability to generally localize cloaked ships. While not usually hostile, they do actively seek out contraband entosis links and will attempt to decloak ships to verify their entosis status. So Jovian ships and observatories will occasionally scan for cloaked ships, warp to somewhere on the new big grid and try to decloak it. Players can be prompted to know this is taking place by noting jovian scans are searching outwards into space. It gives players some options. They can use visual input for a very rough triangulation and head out in that direction, or players can simply scan down drifters/seekers and go check out the grid they are examining. Either way, the chance of decloaking is immeasurably greater than a completely random search. It also fits the Eve storyline somewhat in addition to holding promise that someday, human controlled gangs might be able to triangulate their way onto a cloaker's grid using reverse engineered jovian scanners (assuming some modest tweaks to dscan mechanics that allow for warp to grid instead of needing a fixed location). ============= On timer based cloaks. The naysayers here have two views. 1. It will break cloaks. 2. It will never be worthwhile to try and catch a cloaker in the window available. If we assume both are true, then neither are. The timer based issue is simply a question of finding the balance point between breaking cloaks and never worthwhile.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 16:02:59 - [63] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Your suggestion breaks several things to solve a non problem. Said non problem? "Waah, I can't rat afk if there's a non-blue in local!" Don't forget that "local isn't any defence but DONT YOU DARE TAKE IT AWAY" And "it's not reasonable that I should have to be prepared for PvP in no security space when I am ratting because my isk/hour is > all" and my favourite "whilst I should not have to so much as fit a long point on my ratting ship, as this is unreasonable; any returning super capital pilot had jolly well better be paging all the nerds for a support fleet. Because that's not an unreasonable ask." It's hilarious. You are misunderstanding the position. We want no security space to allow for unsolicited PvP for all players, not matter how they are fit.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 16:14:11 - [64] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Your suggestion breaks several things to solve a non problem. Said non problem? "Waah, I can't rat afk if there's a non-blue in local!" Don't forget that "local isn't any defence but DONT YOU DARE TAKE IT AWAY" And "it's not reasonable that I should have to be prepared for PvP in no security space when I am ratting because my isk/hour is > all" and my favourite "whilst I should not have to so much as fit a long point on my ratting ship, as this is unreasonable; any returning super capital pilot had jolly well better be paging all the nerds for a support fleet. Because that's not an unreasonable ask." It's hilarious. You are misunderstanding the position. We want no security space to allow for unsolicited PvP for all players, not matter how they are fit. And the simplest way to achieve that, is to bin local. But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that's not cool. You would have to bin local completely. Otherwise a cloaked ship (that would still retain its invulnerability to unsolicited PvP) would merely have to say something to make sure everyone knows there is a hostile in system they need to be wary of.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 16:31:39 - [65] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: You would have to bin local completely. In nullsec, certainly. It would make sense from a lore perspective as well, since with the whole "empires losing their grasp" thing they've got going on, the NPC groups stop being able to support the gate network that makes local a thing to begin with. Quote: Otherwise a cloaked ship (that would still retain its invulnerability to unsolicited PvP) They're not invulnerable, and to say they are is a lie. Regardless, if local were deleted, they would have to actively search the system to know whether there was a target in the area or not. Well, a good start would be to nerf local in wormhole space first, dont you think? You can still speak in local there. How do you figure cloaked ship inside a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PvP?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 17:12:56 - [66] - Quote Mike You caught what I said about the timer based approach a few posts back? Morrigan I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 17:21:59 - [67] - Quote Kaarous Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 17:22:59 - [68] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: I am just saying that if the idea is to remove local to remove the implicit threat, then you have to remove speak otherwise the implicit threat can be made there. Not caring is fine, but not scalable. Won't make any odds. There are other ways to spook the locals. Then removing local will not fix the concern I have.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 17:32:12 - [69] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: Kaarous Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP. Please explain to me why you think the decision to decloak is entirely up to them. Sigh. You are doing your cause a disservice. I will just carry on developing suggestions then :).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 19:34:29 - [70] - Quote Two suggestions then so far. 1. A timer based mechanism. If a timer is either OP and "breaks cloaks" or UP and "cannot work", then it is neither. Middle ground between rendering cloaks useless and not creating real windows of vulnerability have to exist. Both complaints simply point to the importance of balancing a timing mechanism correctly. 2. A PvE based mechanism. Allow Jovian assets to scan for cloaked ships occasionally as an element in the race's anti-entosis campaign. Non intrusive in sense that Jovian goal is to decloak by proximity, not kill. Allow players to exploit/piggyback Jovian decloaking by using prompts to indicate the Jovian hunt is on.

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 20:44:46 - [71] - Quote Morrigan He is correct that there are barriers to going on roams in wormholes. Some of them intentional. Wormhole space would break without game mechanics put in place specifically to protect them.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 21:29:04 - [72] - Quote "So one clear counter to AFK cloakers...numbers. Rat like people mine. People who mine will have a number of mining ships, a boosting rorqual, a POS, and so forth." Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat. Mining fleets cannot do it, ratting fleets cannot either. The only counter I know of is forming up a fleet and flash ratting while on the roam. Which is doable occasionally I suppose, but that is simply by not distinguishing between pvp and pve at all. My issue is not a peak time problem in any event. So even that counter does not resolve my concern.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 21:37:19 - [73] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Two suggestions then so far. 1. A timer based mechanism. If a timer is either OP and "breaks cloaks" or UP and "cannot work", then it is neither. Middle ground between rendering cloaks useless and not creating real windows of vulnerability have to exist. Both complaints simply point to the importance of balancing a timing mechanism correctly. 2. A PvE based hunting mechanism. Allow Jovian assets to scan for cloaked ships occasionally as an element in the race's anti-entosis campaign. Non intrusive in sense that Jovian goal is to decloak by proximity, not kill. Allow players to exploit/piggyback Jovian decloaking by using prompts to indicate the Jovian hunt is on. Oh now we are back to the timer issue. Again, why should a non-AFK player have his game play nerfed by to get at AFK players? That is just simply bad game design. And same with all of the various "scan them down" approaches. And finally, if I am at a safe spot and I am cloaked....why should I have to be vulnerable considering that, I pose, literally, no actual risk to anyone. I acquire literally no in-game assets of any kind at all (aside from the same assets I could acquire in station--e.g. PI, managing market orders, etc.). Frankly, I don't see the issue here. Not all ships face the same level of risk when in space. In fact, the level of risk is dependent not on just game mechanics, but also on player actions. For example, in which of the two cases is the ship more at risk? A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon without a scout. A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon with a scout. Case 1 has the most risk. A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon with a scout. A carrier pilot jumps to a well placed cyno on station. Case 1 again. Clearly we need to nerf something here because a player taking measures to be safeGÇªwhy thatGÇÖs ridiculous. The cloaking parallel is not simply that there is a cloak fitted to the ship, but that the pilot took the time and effort to create a safe spot where his ship is safe while the cloak is activated. Just as the carrier pilot either took the effort himself or via a friend to set up a cyno on station allowing for very safe travel. My position remains that all players in space should be subject to some risk of unsolicited PvP as a matter of principle. Enduring afk cloaky campers are problematic specifically because I believe (a belief that should be validated by dev data before any action is taken) that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition. Yah normative (what should be) positions.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 22:23:38 - [74] - Quote Mag's wrote: Jerghul wrote: ...snip...that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition. So we should focus on some notion regarding player retention, that's based on anecdotal evidence. But ignore local, even though it's directly involved? We should then only nerf cloaks and still ignore local, because that will end AFKing? Yeah right. Jerghul wrote: Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP. When you can explain how others in the system are from them, when they are cloaked. *Two way street.* I think I was pretty clear that player attrition is not verifiable by way of anecdotal evidence. Its something the Devs need to check out before taking action. You truly do not understand what implicit risk means in this sense? I am not sure how many different ways I can rehash it. Afk cloaky campers represent the threat that at any time, any number of very dangerous ships can attack any ship almost immediately. This vulnerability to unsolicited PvP exists for as long as the afk cloaky camper remains in system. The afk cloaky camper is of course invulnerable to unsolicited PvP. Its not hard to understand. The implicit threat they represent is far more limiting that any actual threat that might arise (as per normal game theory in for example chess; the threat potential is more potent than its execution).
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.07 23:01:03 - [75] - Quote Teckos The POS shield one I think we can ignore as a station surrogate (I did consider qualifying my statement, but sometimes things just get too wordy). Rolling safes do not qualify, nor would burning offgrid to defeat being scanned down. Neither are invulnerable to PvP, though both are unlikely to get killed. I am not looking for a mechanism that compels cloaked ships to engage in PvP combat, but rather a mechanism that make them vulnerable to PvP actions. The vulnerability is all that is required. Human error will provide the practical balancing boundaries (the afk contribution assures it) that give even very limited vulnerability sufficient impact. Edit Goodness the trouble people have with the concept of implicit threat. Jump fatigue went a long way in resolving one of the game's implicit threat issues. Enduring afk cloaky camping is simply another one of those things.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 01:13:57 - [76] - Quote Teckos Lets try yet another rehash of explaining the term "implicit threat" Analytically, the enduring cloaky camp implicit threat issue is the same one that paralysed the use of capitals in Eve for quite some time. The problem was not that supers could hot drop everywhere or would drop anywhere, or even anywhere, it was that they could potentially drop on your capital fleet. Developers recognized that there was a limited number of pilots able to fly a larger number of ships, so they incorporated mechanisms that severely curtailed pilot movement. Hence jump fatigue and changes to the clone system. Enduring Afk cloaky camping represents the same type of implicit threat on a much smaller and correspondingly much more widespread scale. By this I mean its effect a lot more of Eve's population directly. The afk cloaky camping implicit threat is backed by innumerable subcap pilots in uncountable subcap ships, so of course has profound effects far deeper than the "waah, why can't I undock my capital without it possibly being unfair" group that saw fundamental changes shift mechanisms in their favour. Afk cloaky camping removes access to content (and it of course follows that removing access to content increases player attrition) because implicit threats are very potent. The fix here is of course to make enduring afk cloaky campers potentially vulnerable to unsolicited PvP occasionally. Any vulnerability can be extremely light-handed as the afk element in enduring afk cloaky camping assures that human error will give virtually any vulnerability sufficient impact.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 01:45:00 - [77] - Quote An implicit threat is by definition incalculable. The only known is what might be lost. And of course loss of access to content causes player adaptation. That is sort of my point when I speak of player attrition. Enduring afk cloaky camping has a far greater negative impact on the game than the the implicit threat hotdropping supers represented. It is in principle the same type of issue.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 12:45:18 - [78] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jerghul wrote: Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat. And it all comes down to this. "Waah, I can't live with any uncertainty of any kind!" Which seems to be the core argument for not wanting a mechanism that creates a small window where enduring afk cloaky campers are potentially vulnerable to unsolicited PvP. Any mechanism could be very light-handed. The afk component of the implicit threat assures very limited potential vulnerability will have sufficient impact.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 14:16:07 - [79] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: There is nothing that says you should catch a carebear, anymore than there is anything that says that carebear should be left alone. Time is on your side already, the carebear is operating for hours, and must remain vigilant that whole time. You operate for a few minutes and expect to win out every time. Assuming they are flying properly you should be catching the inattentive, not those staying on top of their game. This thread has several suggestions. If you didn't show up in local until you broke the gate cloak, you would have your chance. If cloaks were initially very safe, but that safety degraded over time from active enemy effort you would retain all other uses of the cloak, just not indefinite. There is absolutely no excuse for cloaks to be both extremely safe (currently 100% if used properly) and last indefinitely. Certainly not while also allowing mobility and scanning. I completely agree that absolute timers are not the answer. EVE is about conflict and competition, and cloaks should be no different. A mechanic that allows an enemy to degrade the safety is the best compromise so far. Simply making them not work, or leaving them in perfect operation forever, are both unacceptable. You do understand that is still a timer, right? The timer just has conditional triggers. I prefer PvE based conditional triggers (Jovians checking out cloaked ships to see if they have entosis contraband on board. In a non-destructive way [unless there is contraband], but with ingame prompts so players can piggyback Jovian efforts...or simply scan down a ship the Jovians have decloaked if that ship is long term afk). PvE based triggers are less intrusive and easier to tweak (as we dont know exactly what and how often Jovians do things allows for Devs to tweak the script as often as they like without uproar). To me, the fix relates simply to creating the possibility of unsolicited PvP. The afk component of technique that removes access to content (and increased player attrition) assures that human error will give the measure sufficient impact no matter how slight the possibility of unsolicited PvP might be.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 14:45:18 - [80] - Quote Its still a conditional timer Mike. If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time. I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear.

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 14:57:01 - [81] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: See that's the thing. I know you've never lived in wormholes because the people who live there would be all over a new signature in moments. Literally, a matter of minutes, tops. And people can be scanned in a single cycle. This would also happen in K space over timer driver fights where the initial area is known. Honestly, please stop trying to screw with mechanics you don't understand. Do seekers and drifters often visit wormhole space (for one of the reasons behind my suggestion on a PvE trigger)? The grid size just increased something terrible. Which is a factor in trying to decloak an on grid ship. The point both Mike and I are trying to make is something along the line of a cloaked player should be given more than a sufficient chance to take corrective action to avoid pending unsolicited PvP, but there needs to be a chance of unsolicited PvP if no corrective action is taken.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 15:10:56 - [82] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I was referring to scan signatures, the idea is horrible and again underscores the lack of game experience by the proposer. NPCs should never do a players dirty work. I do not want to be the cloaky scout providing warpins to my fleet whilst dodging some crappy NPCs. There is no "limit" you can set on this that doesn't risk screwing up fleet and scout work. None. When cloaked, I have zero way to interact with another players vessel. If I become more vulnerable when cloaked, I'd like to activate mods and shoot whilst cloaked. It's only fair..... Of course there are conditionals can be scripted that will not make scanning seekers an issue for an actively piloted cloaky scout. Or indeed any cloaked ship that is not predominantly afk. Hunting down entosis contraband is incidentally an Eve storyline agenda. That it can correlate to resolving a problematic afk issue is a happy coincidence.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 15:19:17 - [83] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: List 5 ways you can tell if a ship is active without providing a tell for those on grid with it. I'll be impressed if you manage No you wouldn't. But that would be an interesting thread topic. You should make it.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 15:31:53 - [84] - Quote Goodness. The point has been rehashed quite a number of times now. You really should try to keep up. But never fear. I will rehash it again presently.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 16:06:42 - [85] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Jerghul wrote: Its still a conditional timer Mike. If conditions A-X are met, then cloak ship detection likelihood becomes a function of time. I am just making this point so that things remain conceptually clear. The only timer involved is the respawn of the false positives. Location becomes a function of effort. I will even go the wormholers one better, and suggest that as they are special snowflakes already that the scanner does not work there. It's stupid and unbalanced, but hey, so long as their assets remain safe from harm... And effort has a time component rendering it a function of time. Its important to recognize that conditional timers are still timers. Its helpful when trying to design mechanisms, but you have to accept that "timer" is not an inherently evil term. Enduring afk cloaky campers are on a timer currently for example. They are removed from systems once a day.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 16:17:23 - [86] - Quote Of course its nothing like I have suggested. There are any number of timer based solutions; particularly when you start mucking about with conditional timers. I am not married to any solution for as long as it achieves my end goal; Potential vulnerability to unsolicited PvP for enduring afk cloaky campers in a way that is avoidable through active cloaky pilot counteraction. Thats the fix. Human error inherent to afk will ensure sufficient impact.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 19:06:03 - [87] - Quote Morrigan Mike does however have a very firm understanding of a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 19:52:25 - [88] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan Mike does however have a very firm understanding of a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. And in Eve, if you're not prepared to stand up and fight, or adapt to your surroundings then you need to rethink your mindset. If you won't even entertain ANYTHING beyond 100% safe ratting, I submit this is not the game for you. Even highsec miners sign up for more risk. As an example when I used to live in high sec (young kids precluded much else) I still maintained a jumpclone and ships in NPC null, FDZ4-A as I recall, in the event of a wardec to my one man band. I never had to use it in anger, only for funsies. But I made the provision, I preemptively adapted to aggression, I took steps to protect myself and enjoy myself simultaneously. Funny, I could have said the same thing. Just substitute ratting with afk cloaking and you have it. Its not about being 100% safe. Its about not being camped out of content by 100% safe enduring afk cloaky campers. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 21:50:36 - [89] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: I completely agree that absolute timers are not the answer. EVE is about conflict and competition, and cloaks should be no different. A mechanic that allows an enemy to degrade the safety is the best compromise so far. Simply making them not work, or leaving them in perfect operation forever, are both unacceptable. I agree in general with this Mike, but here is the thingGÇªyou are using local to avoid conflict and competition. Many of your posts in this and other threads have been about ways to get out of conflict and competitionGÇªeven when players have already put their foot in it (e.g. the freighter bumping thread). So, if we are going to change cloaks then we need to change local. At least move the intel functions into a structure in space that can be attacked/subverted. I would support entosing and counter entosing local (it seems a logical progression in trending game development). But the issues are not linked beyond making sure enduring loss of local does not occur. Players need to be able to turn local back on again quite easily through some mechanism. Otherwise you just enhance the content denial inherent to afk cloaky camping. Its really about the balance between measures and countermeasures. If you want to deny content on one hand, then you need to supply a means to access content with the other. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 21:59:42 - [90] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: NPCs should never do a players dirty work. I do not want to be the cloaky scout providing warpins to my fleet whilst dodging some crappy NPCs. There is no "limit" you can set on this that doesn't risk screwing up fleet and scout work. None. Yep. And that is why you don't see guys like Mark Hadden out solo killing blinged out ratters. Now anomaly rats will immediately switch over to attack anyone activating any sort of e-war module. Warp in an warp disrupt a ratter....now you have to tank the ratter and the rats. A nice little buff to ratting, IMO. That is actually an example of PvE-PvP integration. So the normative "should" does not necessarily apply to Eve development trends. Besides, seekers decloaking unwary (aka afk) cloaky campers on occasion fits developing Eve story-line nicely. They are motivated to seek out entosis links after all. Why should a cloak stop them from inspecting for contraband? Cloak up again if they decloak you. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 22:20:25 - [91] - Quote Teckos Its always a horrible idea to individualize systemic flaws. Its sort of like arguing against the hotdropping super changes by citing every time you moved a capital ship from A to B without dying. Sure you could, but it did not change the fact that the implicit threat hotdroppers represented severely curtailed fleet tactics for a long time. Afk cloaky campers represent the same kind of implicit threat, but with a much heavier impact on the game. It is a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. It is a huge problem that I believe developers will deal with sooner rather than later. Edit Like I said, I have nothing against changes to local for as long as the changes do not mirror the problems afk cloaky campers cause; specifically loss of access to content with no recourse. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 22:50:52 - [92] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: It is a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. If they are just solo ratting, apart from screwing with the economy, what value or content are they adding to the game? They are being denied content. They are not necessarily here to entertain you. Brokk The implicit threat hotdropping meant in the end that mechanisms where introduced lower the threat. The problem rotates around no risk certainly. Hence the solution lies in creating the possibility that an afk cloaky camper might become engaged in unsolicited PvP that cloaky pilot counter action can avoid. It does not have to be a big chance. Human error intrinsic to afk will assure that virtually any measure will have sufficient impact. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.08 23:00:25 - [93] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: No, they are denying themselves THAT content. One could make a compelling argument that flooding the market with faction, deadspace loot and isk with no risk is unhealthy to the overall economy and such activities SHOULD be purged with fire. As I say, even high sec runners accept more risk, typically got for less isk. The implicit risk created by afk cloaky campers denies them the content. Its the same kind of problem that the implicit threat of hotdropping supers used to be. Active threats are fine. Passive-aggressive afk cloaky camping is hideously destructive. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 02:29:01 - [94] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos Its always a horrible idea to individualize systemic flaws. Its sort of like arguing against the hotdropping super changes by citing every time you moved a capital ship from A to B without dying. Sure you could, but it did not change the fact that the implicit threat hotdroppers represented severely curtailed fleet tactics for a long time. Afk cloaky campers represent the same kind of implicit threat, but with a much heavier impact on the game. It is a mechanism that in its current form causes players to log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. It is a huge problem that I believe developers will deal with sooner rather than later. Edit Like I said, I have nothing against changes to local for as long as the changes do not mirror the problems afk cloaky campers cause; specifically loss of access to content with no recourse. Jerghul, My point is find out when they are most active....then don't rat during those times, at least not alone. I mean ***, here you are just begging for CCP to handle your problem. And no AFK cloak camping was not a heavier impact on the game than teleporting apex force fleets around the map in very short time spans. Notice CCP nerfed jump drives...they have not nerfed AFK cloaking. And dude, you will always lose content without recourse. The rest of us wont, but you, and Mike, et. al. will. Nah, players like me and Mike are invested in EvE to the point of even posting here. Its not about us. Its about players who log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. Yes, people greatly invested in the game and argued vocally did eventually change an unfortunate mechanic directly relevant to a small portion of the Eve community. Go capital ship fleet team! The change to enduring afk cloaky camping has not happened yet, but I am pretty sure the developers recognize that it is the same kind of flaw that lead to changes to hotdropping supers. Perpetual implicit threats are simply bad for the game; bad for capital fleets in a small scale. Bad for anyone wanting to access content in cloaky camped systems on an endemic scale. You would be wise to take to heart what you know: winter is coming. Persistent afk camping without the possibility of unsolicited pvp is going to end. Fighting it tooth and nail is a waste of energy better spent on trying to identify a low impact change. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 12:36:33 - [95] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Nah, players like me and Mike are invested in EvE to the point of even posting here. Its not about us. Its about players who log on, look at their screen, think "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. If a player cannot be bothered to find a way to do something in game if there is an AFK cloaker, that is their problem. Quote: The change to enduring afk cloaky camping has not happened yet, but I am pretty sure the developers recognize that it is the same kind of flaw that lead to changes to hotdropping supers. Perpetual implicit threats are simply bad for the game; bad for capital fleets in a small scale. Bad for anyone wanting to access content in cloaky camped systems on an endemic scale. AFK cloaking is nowhere near the problem of having 50 supers and 60 titans zipping across the galaxy in 10 minutes or less. This is why cloaking has not been nerfed but jump drives have been nerfed. And there are no perpetual implicit threats. Or more accurately with a bit of work you can get an idea on how much of a threat there is. For example, I am west coast US TZ. So when it is 3AM for me it is probably safe to rate...I am not going to hotdrop anything on you ever at that hour. Quote: You would be wise to take to heart what you know: winter is coming. Persistent afk camping without the possibility of unsolicited pvp is going to end. Fighting it tooth and nail is a waste of energy better spent on trying to identify a low impact change. So is local as you know it. The solution to their problem as you phrase it is think: "meh", log off, then play something else in their Steam Library. Which turns the issue into a whole different kind of problem. 50 supers and 60 titans with the potential to zip across the galaxy in 10 minutes or less represented the same kind of perpetual implicit threat. Though that problem was of course relevant to a much smaller group of highly invested players. I am quite sure Developers are aware that afk cloaky camping is a type of perpetual implicit threat they have fixed before, simply because perpetual enduring threats are bad for the game. Just as I am sure they will not fix local in a way that becomes an enduring afk cloaky surrogate. So yah, your time is better spent trying to look at cool, non-intrusive fixes to enduring implicit threats, than it is arguing that the fixes should not take place. You know as well as I do that winter is coming. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 14:24:38 - [96] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Actually ... when people start lobbying for unwarranted nerfs and more overall security, it is our duty to raise an opposing voice. The argument IF fixes should take place is a valid one. Whine hard enough and CCP will give us what we want? Not good enough. New mechanics may be coming our way and we will adapt; yet perpetual implicit threat is not a problem that needs fixing. It is as Mag's put it a form of psychological warfare, and judging by how the cloaker has you firmly in his impotent grasp of terror, it is working quite nicely On the off-chance CCP is reading any of this (which I doubt), it is imperative to showcase the mechanic in its current form is not regarded unbalanced by the majority of EvE posters. It is equally important to poke some holes in your hot air balloons before they take off, lest there are cases which the devs may not have considered. So yes, looking for fixes without making a case for why there needs to be a fix, is taking a leap too far from the onset. In the case Mike presented, for example, it turned out his problem was not the "invulnerable cloaker" but the mere fact he refused to take Multiplayer into account. More to the point, he refused to take DEFENSE fleets into account for at the same time, it was assumed the OFFENSE fleet was numerous as evidenced by the cyno. If his showcase had been a pure 1-v-1 story, of course his PvE ship would simply blow up the recon or -lacking a longpoint- force it offgrid in no time. Only after defining the parameters for his case (a SOLO non-PvP fit ship in deep sov space versus a whole host of offenders pouring through a cyno) did it become apparent the showcase was invalid and therefore, no fix was needed. Thus far, you haven't even started to present a case, yet you've launched at least 5 or 6 hot air balloon fixes. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Can you raise a compelling argument as to what exactly is broken, in your opinion? Thus far you have spoken about "the guy who logs on, sees a red in local, and logs right back off". Is this guy alone? What is this guy trying to accomplish? Where does this guy live? Why does he log off? If you are talking about just ONE guy trying to rat in sov null, then you are presenting the exact same case Mike did, and the same answers apply: (a) get an alliance / get fleets in the air. (b) find out if the threat is a genuine threat or sound asleep. (c) go back to highsec. Do you understand why it is important you tell us the whole story from the top, and not just go off on some assumption we're supposed to take your word for? I think it a mistake to think posters are representative of EvE players. And yes, perpetual afk cloaky camping can be used explicitly as a psy-ops to increase player attrition in the target system. The ability to sustain denial of content with little cost and no risk is of course a powerful tool. Its the same kind of implicit threat hotdropping supers used to be, except enduring afk cloaky camping denies content to a vastly larger group of players than the relatively small group who felt it too unsafe to use capital ships back in the day. Enduring implicit threats are simply not good for Eve as a game. Which is why the Devs will fix it (and make sure the local fix does not become a enduring afk cloaky camper surrogate). You would be wise to spend more time looking for non-intrusive fixes, instead of wasting it on a battle already lost. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 16:17:03 - [97] - Quote Morrigan The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix. I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted. Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 16:48:26 - [98] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan The devs know cloaks are broken. The only reason it is interesting to discuss why they are broken is because that gives a chance to identify the least intrusive fix. I think we are past the point where stonewalling will delay change. It just muddies the water and risks dev intervention being a bit hamfisted. Linking local to cloaks is relevant insofar as any changes to local should not become a broken cloak surrogate. Citations needed for ALL of that claptrap. Last I heard from The ManGäó they were working as intended You may wish to take a note from those clamoring for rigs on freighters..."be careful what you ask for" CCP Fozie wrote: It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS. But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that. So, that's my source. Where's yours? That source is good enough for me. You missed "But". Its the biggest word in the English language. The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it). It is recognized by the developers and they "would like to make some changes". Do not suppose that is limited to changing local in nullsec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 19:15:45 - [99] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jerghul wrote: The problem is and remains the enduring implicit threat (a pretty big psychological effect as Fozie called it). Sounds like a problem that can be cured with a hearty dose of HTFU. A "pretty big psychological effect" is pretty much the very definition of, "Your ******* problem to deal with." Anyway, it's pretty amazing that you can actually run effective PsyOps in Eve. There isn't another game out there that could claim that. Frankly, we need more of this. It's a little sad that AFK cloaking is pretty much the only way to instill terror in the fainthearted without ever actually doing anything to them. Yah, we should petition to remove jump fatigues to again strike terror into the hearts of fainthearted capital pilots. And whats up with hat arbitrary jump limit through wormholes? I am sure those faint-hearted wormhole denizens would learn to deal with the threat of their assets being raped regularly by fleets of the bigger ships in Eve. But as we see, enduring implicit threats are a problem in the game's design and are being systematically removed gradually, while new game elements take care not to be vulnerable to enduring implicit threats. Brokk Getting rid of local compounds the enduring implicit threat problem. Hence all kinds of devises used in wormhole space to counter implicit threat issues. Look at the other wh oddities to get an inkling on how the Devs are thinking in regards to reducing the "pretty big psychological effect". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 19:36:47 - [100] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Look at the other wh oddities to get an inkling on how the Devs are thinking in regards to reducing the "pretty big psychological effect". Keep in mind, you're not happy in null with a neut. I doubt you'd even install if it was all like WH space I am not happy that players think: "meh", then go play some other game in their Steam Library. I am an invested stakeholder, so am not particularly susceptible to in-game adversity (as I think my endless rehashes of a point shows). "Local spatial phenomena may cause strange effects on your ship systems" is probably a good place to start. My stab at what the devs may be thinking of is giving sov holders the ability to DYO system that can deploy a great range of installations that mirror wh spatial effects. With entosis links being the on-off switch for these things. This impacts on enduring implicit threats in the way you might imagine: How likely is it that a afk cloaky camper is in a particular system with a fleet of ships lined up and fitted to be able to operate in that system? If it gets close enough to "thats silly", then the implicit threat is gone. Any threats that are, must be actual and explicit. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 19:43:47 - [101] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan The devs know cloaks are broken. Fozzie has stated explicitly that he thinks cloaks are quite balanced. I posted a link back upstream you should educate yourself instead of doing an impression of the Amazing Kreskin. You too forgot the biggest word in the English language: "But". Cloaks in isolation are fine. The problem is that they can be used to create an enduring implicit threat. You don't have the change cloaks to remove the ability to generate enduring implicit threats (see my above post) " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 21:09:11 - [102] - Quote Teckos Have I in any way been unclear about my issue with cloaks being entirely on how they are used to create enduring implicit threats? So I repeat. They are fine in isolation, but broken in the context of the game. Anything that removes implicit threat potential is fine in my books. Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution. It could however be done (or rather create the possibility that player actions can turn local on and off) only in conjunction with other mechanics seen in wormhole space. Allowing sovholders to tailor systems they control with mechanism that mirror "natural phenomena" in wormhole space would do it. It just means ships need to be tailored to fight in a specific system depending on what choices the sov holder has made and what infrastructure modules have been deployed. The implicit threat goes away once it becomes too silly to assume that a small fleet has been put together and is tailored only to target a player in a particular system. The only thing that exists then is real and explicit threats. As a final note; Does it seem as if much care about what you think of me? Its one of the reasons making things about the man instead of about the topic is so inefficient. You need someone who cares for it to work. And that friend, is a poor assumption to always make. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 21:26:41 - [103] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jerghul wrote: Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution. You keep repeating "enduring implicit threat" as if it is a phrase that has any actual meaning beyond being something you have an entirely subjective aversion to. You seem to think you can just hand-wave away the need to present any actual objective argument through repetition of that phrase - as if we're talking about reducing the rate of real-world terrorism, or pineapple on pizza or something. Enduring implicit threat is ******* awesome. Enduring Implicit threats causes the following: people log on, look at screen, think: "Meh", log off, and play something else in their Steam Library. Perpetual content denial is another term. Or "a pretty big psychological effect" as Fozie termed it. Beloved children have many names: "CCP Fozie wrote: It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS. But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that." " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 21:57:36 - [104] - Quote Morrigan Hence my using the term "increases player attrition" many, many times in earlier posts. Enduring implicit threats cause more players to quit the game. They do not cause all players to quit the game. "More" being less than "all" in case my use of quantifiers is unclear. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.09 23:56:11 - [105] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I see we're back into the "Jergens blatantly making stuff up" phase again. Do you have anything to back up all of that bullshit? Or are we just supposed to beg the devs to waste time and manpower just because your dumb ass said something? The developers see things the way I do. The problem is not with cloaks, but rather how cloaks are used to create enduring implicit threats. The solution is of course to shake things up. Removing local is not a solution, it is a possible consequence of nerfing implicit threats. Look to wormhole space to see how implicit threats can be nerfed by various mechanisms. The nerfed implicit threat in null-sec is the reason why no local works, and why afk cloaky campers do not worry anyone. Much as I am sure wormhole denizens like to think its a question of their superior moral fibre " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 00:12:52 - [106] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos Have I in any way been unclear about my issue with cloaks being entirely on how they are used to create enduring implicit threats? So I repeat. They are fine in isolation, but broken in the context of the game. Anything that removes implicit threat potential is fine in my books. Removing local done in isolation creates different form of enduring implicit threat, so that is of course not the solution. It could however be done (or rather create the possibility that player actions can turn local on and off) only in conjunction with other mechanics seen in wormhole space. Allowing sovholders to tailor systems they control with mechanism that mirror "natural phenomena" in wormhole space would do it. It just means ships need to be tailored to fight in a specific system depending on what choices the sov holder has made and what infrastructure modules have been deployed. The implicit threat goes away once it becomes too silly to assume that a small fleet has been put together and is tailored only to target a player in a particular system. The only thing that exists then is real and explicit threats. As a final note; Does it seem as if much care about what you think of me? Its one of the reasons making things about the man instead of about the topic is so inefficient. You need someone who cares for it to work. And that friend, is a poor assumption to always make. No, you have been quite clear. Quite clearly full of crap that is. As I have pointed out the threat is not, incalculable as you have claimed. The threat can be mitigated in a variety of ways. This game is all about threats, when you get right down to itGÇª.it is, at itGÇÖs very core a PvP sandbox game. As such they are not broken. A broken mechanic would be one that has no counters at all. Moving to another system, ratting in a group, ratting during GÇ£off hoursGÇ¥ are all examples of mitigating the risk. I have seen this kind of Bravo Sierra before. People claim freighter bumping is GÇ£brokenGÇ¥ because you cannot get away from the bumping ship. However, it was pointed out you can gank the bumping ship. Even better use a scout and avoid being bumped entirely. And best of allGÇªuse a scout with webs who can web your freighter into warp if you do find yourself on a gate with a bumping ship. SoGÇªnot broken. Same thing here. The fact that there is and GÇ£enduring implicit threatGÇ¥ is really an irrelevant load of nonsense for another reasonGÇªin NS there is ALWAYS and GÇ£enduring implicit threatGÇ¥. You never know if a hostile is going to jump into system with you and try to catch you. Even if you are in a dead end system and you have a scout in the next system over you are still facing an GÇ£implicit enduring threatGÇ¥. A wormhole could form and let in hostiles. There could be a hostile logged off who could then log back in. In NS you are never meant to be entirely safe. Another one is the possibility of an invasion by a hostile alliance or coalition. It is implicit in that it is something that could happen, it is enduring in that so long as that hostile group is on your borders they pose the threat, and that they are hostile makes the threatGÇªwell, a threat. I understand what you are writing. Everyone here understands. Thing is, I reject your very premise, and after that point all your conclusions become seriously in doubt. It is complete Bravo Sierra. And this is why when you say crap like GÇ£winter is comingGÇ¥ I donGÇÖt care. IGÇÖm fine with GÇ£enduring implicit threatsGÇ¥. IGÇÖm fine being the source of such threats, IGÇÖm fine when I am the target of such threats. It makes the game fun, exciting and challenging. YouGÇªnot so much. Lets see, there was a lot of fluff in your post... Its fine that you do not buy the premise, its also fine that you do not care that winter is coming. I am mostly please with having recognized what the Dev's are up to, and what mechanisms in wormhole space might be coming to null-sec a winter sometime soon. They seem to recognize the problem I do, and are working towards resolving it. But be sure of one thing: Local is not the fix. It merely is something that can be removed (or more likely can be turned on and off using entosis links) as a consequence of mirroring other wormhole mechanisms in 0-sec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 00:16:59 - [107] - Quote Teckos I was not putting word's in anyone's mouth. I was simply pointing out that developers have done some pretty hamhanded interventions to reduce enduring implicit threats. I would never be so bold as to claim I have won this thread, but I came here mostly seeking assurances that developers will be dealing with enduring implicit threats, and I am currently convinced that they will. So a win for my team at least " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 07:27:10 - [108] - Quote Alundi et al. Here's the thing. Being taken seriously by you et al. is not relevant. Its relevant that the Devs know enduring implicit threats are a thing that increases player attrition. And they know that. Goodness you people waste time and perfectly good letters on things that do not matter. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 07:48:21 - [109] - Quote Yes, I know. This thread is indeed a black hole (which is kind of ironic given where the solution from afk-camping is coming from :-)). Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it. I rest assured. They do not really need some fancy suggestion from me or anyone else. Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter. So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause. Who knows, we might stumble over something devs have missed in their musings. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 07:49:30 - [110] - Quote Yes, I know. This thread is indeed a black hole (which is kind of ironic given where the final solution to the enduring afk cloaky camping question is coming from ). Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it. I rest assured. They do not really need some fancy suggestion from me or anyone else. Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter. So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause. Who knows, we might stumble over something devs have missed in their musings. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 08:08:02 - [111] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Like I said a few posts back. I came here looking for assurances that devs understood the problems enduring implicit camping cause, and are going to fix it. And there are absolutely no assurances regarding this, but Jerghul posts as if Hilmar himself has posted. Most invested players know that to enjoy EvE properly, you need to embrace uncertainty without paralysis. So, yah, my primary interest now is to look at what mechanisms are coming in from null-sec to fix the enduring implicit threat inherent to afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 08:09:57 - [112] - Quote Alundil wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wormhole mechanisms that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels are going to be moved to null-sec. Which in turns allows cloakys do what ever they want for as long as they want, and allows local to be changed for that matter. So "cold hard speculation, not idle hard facts" is really the only meaningful thing to do here. Accept as premise that this or that element is coming in from the cold paradise we know as wormholes, then see what problems and advantages it might cause. I have no idea why you quoted yourself and then turned it into a double-post. But no matter. I live in wspace and have since Apochrypha. Anyone who thinks that threats are "implied" in wspace is a fool. Cloaky proteus is love, cloaky proteus is life, cloaky proteus is everywhere. At any rate, I'm convinced that you've got nothing going on up there and suffer from delusions of omniscience regarding what devs think and what they are planning and thankfuly they are as smart as you and have arrived at the same conclusion and solution that you have, though you got there first (need to point that out) and it's only a matter time and your fellow capsuleers need only endure a little longer under the implied threat. Won't be long now. We can wait. We're AFK after all, amirite? My sides..... Exactly. Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space? That is the question you want to be exploring. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 08:15:11 - [113] - Quote Alundil wrote: lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive. Fair warning to new players that might read this thread... Abandon all hope, ye who enter here hehe, you can multi task and both post here and raise your afk stats you know. You can say what you want about afk activity, but it promotes multi tasking " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 09:12:08 - [114] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Alundil wrote: lel - I'll be back at page 273. I've got to raise my AFK stats before Citadels arrive. Fair warning to new players that might read this thread... Abandon all hope, ye who enter here edit in before I go Quote: Why are implied threats so weak in wormhole space? Because we deal with ship losses daily and are't afraid of losing more/expensive ships and fully expect/anticipate that we'll be dropped on at any point in time. Almost as if the space we choose to live in is actually supposed to be dangerous (kind of like 00 is supposed to be but vOv) Novel concept, that one. Yeah, these guys have only read about wormholes at best, I think. Which is a shame, I think everyone should be encouraged to live there for a decent period, they're wonderful places and really change how you see the game. Yepp, I think we would all like to have mechanisms that allow us to tailor our ships and skills to our very own special ecosystem in null sec too. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 11:09:07 - [115] - Quote Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition. So of course some of those mechanics can and should be mirrored in 0-sec. Giving sov holders the ability to tailor environmental effects in a system they control would be a huge step in the right direction. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 11:31:48 - [116] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition. Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0. But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion. Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique. The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all. Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 12:02:50 - [117] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition. Except that's just not true. WH have merely trained HTFU beyond 0. But of course you don't buy it, hell wasn't so long ago in this very thread you didn't even know there were no gates in them so you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously when it comes to mechanics discussion. Still on about what you think I should think about what you think of me? Like I said, its not a very efficient debating technique. The Devs are pretty clear that they think there are good reasons enduring implicit threats are less of a problem in wormhole space, and of course you may feel free to think CCP was talking about wormhole denizens' superior moral fibre. However, I doubt they are weigh the special snowflake argument very heavily if they think of it at all. Incidentally, I am stupefied that most everyone leap to the conclusion that local is a fix. Wormhole local is possible because other mechanisms degraded enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels. Sheep say: baa. That is obvious. The devs are ON RECORD in saying that cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine. At no point have they mentioned at "fixing" an issue that seems to only occur in deep sov-null. And if you now bring out the "but jump fatique" that was an issue to ALL of new eden, not just a small number of pilots who haven't gotten the message of HTFU And the reason people go to local for fixing afk-cloaking, is because local created that "threat" People going AFK in your system is a direct counter to the 100% info you get from local Cloaks and afk-cloaking are fine when seen in isolation. What is not fine is enduring implicit threats (which the devs are also ON RECORD in saying they want to change). Removing local creates an enduring implicit threat more powerful than the one afk-cloaky camping generates because it is enduring even without the afk player initiated cloaky camper. So cannot be part of the reason for why implicit threats levels are acceptably low in wormhole space. The "good reasons for that" are other mechanics particular to wormhole space. Mechanics that can, should and will be mirrored in null sec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 12:18:05 - [118] - Quote You last post was the hallmark of poor debating technique. Look, its pretty clear what I am saying: Wormhole mechanisms the mitigate enduring implicit risks will be imported to null-sec. Wormhole local is not such a mechanism, but may be possible in null sec when or after mitigating mechanisms are introduced. This is a very clear position that will be verified or dismissed with time. Anything not directly related to the argument is simply not pertinent. Insisting this is about me, and that I should somehow waste valuable letters establishing a pedigree that may or may not satisfy you is silly. Hence the first sentence in this post. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 14:48:33 - [119] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Can you find me actual quote that devs think there is an issue with AFK-cloaking? And what are those mechanics you are talking about? I am not arguing there is a problem with cloaky camping. I am arguing that enduring implicit threats are a problem that is derived from (but not only from) afk cloaky camping. Enduring implicit threats are a problem only because they decrease player retention (others posters may find them problematic for other reasons). Enduring implicit threats are by their very nature matters of perception. Mechanisms do exist that lower implicit threats to acceptable levels. The showcase arena where that is true is wormhole space. Wormhole space has a number of unique characteristics that contribute to lower player attrition. I do not believe it to be the special snowflake argument, nor do I believe it is wormhole local. The law of averages erase the outlier elitist argument on the one hand, and, on its own, "no" local is an enhanced version of the implicit threat derived from enduring afk cloaky camping. So other mechanisms should be looked at. I am currently focusing on "natural phenomena" giving systems unique ecosystems as the probably reason for why implicit threats are at acceptable levels in wormhole space. Real and explicit threats are great game design that seem to flourish in wormhole space if we pay heed to posts in this thread at least. Its good to replace implicit with explicit whenever possible. Here is a post relevant to my line of thinking: Quote: "CCP Fozie wrote: It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS. But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that." " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 15:01:58 - [120] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec? I am sorry that my points are not coming across clearly. Deleting local in nullsec (or rather letting entosis links turn them off and on) is of course entirely possible after other mechanisms that lower enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels are introduced. A careful reader will however understand that no local would spawn an enhanced version of the afk cloaky camping derived implicit threat if it were to be introduced in nullsec without the balancing mechanism found in wormhole space. Mags "But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 15:03:26 - [121] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Is anyone else laughing at the fact that he linked a post wherein Fozzie hints at the intent to delete local from nullsec? I am sorry that my points are not coming across clearly. Deleting local in nullsec (or rather letting entosis links turn them off and on) is of course entirely possible after other mechanisms that lower enduring implicit threats to acceptable levels are introduced. A careful reader will however understand that no local would spawn an enhanced version of the afk cloaky camping derived implicit threat if it were to be introduced in nullsec without balancing mechanisms found in wormhole space. Mags "But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 15:05:57 - [122] - Quote Mag's wrote: At work on my phone atm, so a posting nightmare. But did he just suggest that because Wh don't have local, that it can't be the problem? No mags. I am saying pretty clearly that something that increases implicit threat levels cannot be something that lowers it to acceptable levels. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 15:32:21 - [123] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: the balancing mechanism found in wormhole space. You've still not explained this. I await with glee as to what this "balancing" is. Enlighten us, oh wormhole guru. Please say it's "no cynos", go on, give us all a chuckle at the implication J space works on a geographical level like k-space. I am saying that I believe giving sov holders the means to tailor system environmental conditions would lower implicit threat levels in null sec to acceptable levels. Anyway, I am preaching the choir, and not really to you. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 15:59:18 - [124] - Quote Its not so much that I have dev support, as it is I see what the devs are doing. We have established that afk cloaking is not a problem. Not in my eyes and not in developer eyes. The problem is enduring implicit threats that among other things are derived from cloaky camping in null-sec, and would be derived in greater degree from wh-local in null-sec. So other wh mechanisms lower implicit threat to acceptable levels. I know the logic is a bit non-linear. My apologies for that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:07:48 - [125] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Yah, no, I don't buy the special snowflake argument. The mechanics particular to wormholes have simply lowered enduring implicit threats (implicit threats are by their very nature a matter of perception) to levels that do not cause unneeded player attrition. So of course some of those mechanics can and should be mirrored in 0-sec. Giving sov holders the ability to tailor environmental effects in a system they control would be a huge step in the right direction. He isn't making a special snowflake argument. He is pointing out that they their "options" are the same as ours. They fit their ships, they PvE (mine, PI, rat). Yes, there are WH effects on ships, but they adapt to it....both sides if there is PvP. At least this how I read his post. Admittedly I am largely ignorant of regarding wormholes is....do they tend to work more in groups? Even for PvP or solo? In NS ratting is almost entirely solo, despite the fact that ratting in groups would bring greater safety. Yes, their ships and skills are adapted to the local ecosystems. It means that incursions into that particular ecosystem have to be adapted, or face a huge relative disadvantage. This in turn lowers volatility (unsolicited pvp has to be seriously premeditated) and thus decreases the implicit threat to acceptable levels (ideally to where players only discern real and explicit threats). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:17:16 - [126] - Quote Teckos You should probably avoid paraphrasing what you think my position is. You are making a dog's breakfast of it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:33:13 - [127] - Quote Shrug, if you think out of the box, anything is possible. I did sleeper sites in an Imicus solo when I first went wormhole space (just day visits mind). Never thought I would lose one. Never did. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:44:26 - [128] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos You should probably avoid paraphrasing what you think my position is. You are making a dog's breakfast of it. You should avoid the sanctimonious and superior attitude like going over and over what an "enduring implicit threat" means. [Hint: We get it, we just think it is a bullshit concept.] Your posts about 'but' were hilariously condescending. [Hint, you did some very deep reading between the lines there, and then missed an implicit 'but' in another player's post.] The frequent use of the phrase, "I'm glad to see the Devs are aware of this..." [Hint: Even the Amazing Kreskin can't really read minds and neither can you.] Feel free to call it "a pretty big psychological effect" if you prefer Fozie's words for it. I am sure I missed some nuance in posts. It happens. Particularly when there is a lot of chaff to sort out whilst reading. The Devs are aware of it. I have no idea why you would dispute that (see Foziequote above). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:47:29 - [129] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Shrug, if you think out of the box, anything is possible. But not undocking with a neut in system eh? Or bearing with a ship fit to defend itself? Priceless Its not about me Morrigan. I am an invested stakeholder. As evidenced by my posting here. Its not constructive to individualize phenomena or waste time trying to find hidden agenda. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 17:33:39 - [130] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Shrug, if you think out of the box, anything is possible. But not undocking with a neut in system eh? Or bearing with a ship fit to defend itself? Priceless Or simply quitting the game...because of one dude in a cloaked ship. OMG, there is a red in system and so after 8 years, that's it I'm logging off, uninstalling. Still not about me, friend. I am an invested stakeholder. AFK cloaking is a sov war tactic. Posters here have mentioned it as a psy-ops. Yepp, I have modified and clarified my view. Cloak+cyno potential was a poor way of descibing the issue. Enduring implicit threat is the problem and is derived from a number of mechanisms. Including afk campy cloakers. There is absolutely no need to change cloaks as implicit threats can be dealt with by using compensating mechanisms. To rehash yet again; the mechanisms I am looking at now are "natural phenomena" that give wormhole systems various modifies relevant to combat. They mitigate the perception of risk by decreasing volatility. Ships that want to operate in a system either do so randomly with a significant disadvantage, or specifically fitted with a high degree of premeditation. This lowers implicit risk (which is always perception based). People fear the unknown is another way of looking at it. Real and explicit threats are much easier to deal with. It also makes for better game play. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 19:53:52 - [131] - Quote Lets see the impact on implicit threat after translating to null-sec 1. sov holder ability to close jump gates (collapse wormholes in wormspeak. I will use gate consistently as we are describing 0-sec). Yah, that would definitely decrease implicit threats. 2. New gate spawn Little impact on implicit threat level. The spawn is not player controlled, so is unlikely to spawn at a location with hostiles willing and able to take advantage of it even if it did spawn. Using an alt to guard on outside any spawned gate would decrease implicit risk, might have hardware requirements (a 2ndary laptop). Alternately a newbro would work (this is more a cyno you can jump through, then camp with eyes on the other side to give warning of anyone approaching to use the cyno if we were to insist on that analogy). 3. Omni damage rats Definitely relevant. Tanking omni damage lessens perception of vulnerability to exploiting holes in tank (yay drone space) 4. Powerful rats Definitely relevant. Encourages cooperative ratting (or multi character ratting). The perception of safety is greater in numbers, particularly if omni tanked so people are fitted for pvp capability. If combined with point/scram/web rats, then ratting fleet also has tackle on board to deter hostiles. 5. Ecosystem adaptation (including tactics). No particular reason to worry much that hostiles are well-versed in wh tactics even if they have tailored fittings and skills to match the local system ecosystem. 6. No local clones. Decreased implicit threat. Translates effectively to implant choice. Implants cannot be easily swapped, so players will use implants they can afford to lose. Known space pilots have the illusion of implant swap capability, but the 24 hour limit often renders change impractical. There seems to be a number of mechanisms in wormhole space that decreases implicit threats. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.10 20:07:15 - [132] - Quote "It makes the failures more deadly, but the chance of failure much less." Implicit threat decrease when volatility decreases If we wanted to make the point in jerghulspeak :). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 05:50:48 - [133] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Lets see the impact on implicit threat after translating to null-sec 1. sov holder ability to close jump gates (collapse wormholes in wormspeak. I will use gate consistently as we are describing 0-sec). Yah, that would definitely decrease implicit threats. 2. New gate spawn Little impact on implicit threat level. The spawn is not player controlled, so is unlikely to spawn at a location with hostiles willing and able to take advantage of it even if it did spawn. Using an alt to guard on outside any spawned gate would decrease implicit risk, might have hardware requirements (a 2ndary laptop). Alternately a newbro would work (this is more a cyno you can jump through, then camp with eyes on the other side to give warning of anyone approaching to use the cyno if we were to insist on that analogy). 3. Omni damage rats Definitely relevant. Tanking omni damage lessens perception of vulnerability to exploiting holes in tank (yay drone space) 4. Powerful rats Definitely relevant. Encourages cooperative ratting (or multi character ratting). The perception of safety is greater in numbers, particularly if omni tanked so people are fitted for pvp capability. If combined with point/scram/web rats, then ratting fleet also has tackle on board to deter hostiles. 5. Ecosystem adaptation (including tactics). No particular reason to worry much that hostiles are well-versed in the specifics of relevant tactics even if they have tailored fittings and skills to match the local system ecosystem. 6. No local clones. Decreased implicit threat. Translates effectively to implant choice. Implants cannot be easily swapped, so players will use implants they can afford to lose. Known space pilots have the illusion of implant swap capability, but the 24 hour limit often renders change impractical. There seems to be a number of mechanisms in wormhole space that decreases implicit threats. First, I'll note you left local off the list. And of course removing local basically removes the implicit threat. People only freak out about AFK cloakers because they can see them. Also, it is an attitude thing. Worm holers are fine with no local. PvE pilots who complain about AFK cloaking...they never live in worm holes. Further, I contend that 1 can lead to a false sense of safety and 2 should actually increase the implicit threat level. Just as with a cloaked player in local and not knowing when he'll go active...you don't know when a worm hole or more than one will form. And based on the two players experienced with worm hole life...they are prepared for that eventuality pretty much all the time. Compare this to the typical PvE pilot in a bling boat to max ISK/hour. Where the idea of a scout one system out is horrible because it means less ISK/hour. Having a standing fleet....you mean I might have to stop ratting and go help a guy out? WTF have you been smoking!!! Goodness Peckos, removing local enhances implicit threats. Wormholers are fine with no local and fine with cloaky campers because of other compensating mechanisms. I have mentioned this several times. But you are quoting a rough draft. The point I had finished was drones 2.0 a few posts below. Edit "1. Rats 2.0 Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit) More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready." " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 06:05:42 - [134] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Wormhole mechanics make you safer compared to known gates and cynos. Ratio of Ship kills to NPC kills for 2014, per Dotlan stats: J-Space: 1 : 73.4 Null: 1 : 346.9 Please, do go on. I've roamed null for days on end without ever being in any real risk. Hell, without even having to run a gatecamp. Don't think I've had a day in WH space where someone hasn't at least shot at me. I think that post proves Mike's point. A sleeper rat is the equivalent of how many null sec rats? 10? I am single blatting frostline frigates in a T1 battle cruiser. Sleeper drones are a whole different calibre of rat. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 14:09:46 - [135] - Quote Recap Implicit risk is major EvE problem and is derived from a number of things including, but not limited to, afk cloaky camping Implicit risk should be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option. Implicit risk is at acceptable levels in wormhole space (a premise). This is surprising as wh local seen in isolation would increase implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels. An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes (relevant to thread topic because implicit risk is derived from afk cloaky camping). 1. Rats 2.0 The sleeper lesson: Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit) More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready. 2. Closing gates Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson: Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links. A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut) Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system. 3. Natural phenomena Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation. Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers. (cont. later). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 17:02:44 - [136] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You can't close gates in nullsec. Do you have any idea of how broken that is? My god put the meth away. Look at my signature. I am not making any value judgements on broken or not broken, I am just saying that closing wormholes of the mechanisms that decreases implicit threats in wormhole space. Which is uhm how broken do you reckon? I trust you recognize that wormholes are gate surrogates. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 17:03:45 - [137] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jerghul wrote: Recap Implicit risk is major EvE problem Recap Forum poster believes that repeating an unsubstantiated opinion many times will eventually turn it into a fact. Well, its my and Fozies unsubstantiated opinion then. I have posted the relevant quote many times. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 17:42:54 - [138] - Quote Implicit risk is major EvE problem and is derived from a number of things including, but not limited to, afk cloaky camping Implicit risk should be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option. Implicit risk is at acceptable levels in wormhole space (a premise). This is surprising as wh local seen in isolation would increase implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels. An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes (relevant to thread topic because implicit risk is derived from afk cloaky camping). 1. Rats 2.0 The sleeper lesson: Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage ships in rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit) More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready. 2. Closing gates Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson: Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links. A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut) Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system. 3. Natural phenomena Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation. Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers. 4. No clones The ability to swap clones increases implicit threat. Players risk trapping themselves into flying with implants they cannot afford to use or not flying at all (because they want to keep an expensive set active the next 24 hours) due to the 24 flip over time between possible swaps. A trap a wormhole pilot avoids by clones being semi-permanently unavoidable. Implicit risk can be lowered reducing the time between flips to something significantly less than 24 hours, or by going the other way and making it significantly more than 24 hours in null-sec (up to never changing clones in null-sec for the same thing as wormholes). 5. No cyno Decreases implicit risk. Sov holders access to an infrastructure module that closes cyno-generation possibilities in a null-sec system. Cynosural System Jammer. Devs should and will play around with the mechanics and costs (real and opportunity) to increase usage frequency somewhat. 6. No local Increases implicit risk. That no local works in wormhole space validates the efficiency of the above compensating measures. =========== Done for now unless I think of some other hipster wormhole thing that decreases implicit risk (ship size limits may be relevant for example. I need to think on that. I do not need to reflect on the special snowflake argument given lowered implicit risk is sufficient explanation to why wormholes work without local (which heightens implicit risk far more than afk cloaky campers do if viewed in isolation). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 17:45:32 - [139] - Quote I am not the one assuming rather weakly that the "reasons" fozie is referring to are something other than the ones I have listed. Lack of local increases implicit risk The special snowflake argument is laughable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 18:25:32 - [140] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul is Yige Shen and I claim my 5 million isk. Or, you know, you could discuss the topic at hand. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 19:48:48 - [141] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: I am not the one assuming rather weakly that the "reasons" fozie is referring to are something other than the ones I have listed. Lack of local increases implicit risk The special snowflake argument is laughable. Edit Lets see if I can rehash implicit risk in yet another way. Lets invent a module that sov holders can deploy in their mining system. It turns rats from red to blue in that system. So instead of attacking miners who are now blue to them (unless they attack the rats), they will fly escort for them. I rather suspect that idea would be hated by people who like to hunt miners. We could hash through the reasons, but it amount to not liking implicit risk. You no longer know what might happen when you warp in to tackle a mining vessel. Who knows how helpful the rats might turn out to be. Implicit risk/threats are fine. They are not a problem. In fact, there is always an implicit risk everywhere in the game. If you undock and want to mine ice in HS you could be ganked. There is always non-zero risk. It will happen with little or no warning as well. Same thing with freighters, once you undock you are implicitly agreeing to PvPGÇöi.e. there is an implicit threat there. What is not fine is there is if there is no way to mitigate that risk. For example, freighter bumping, some argued there is nothing one can do when one is being bumped. However, ganking the bumping ship is a workable option. Also, one can take steps to NOT get bumped in the first place. In other words, threats of all kinds are what drive emergent game play in Eve. With regard to cloaking there have been a number of possible solutions put forward to deal with these threats. As noted, the DPS from 10 ishtars with PvP tanks in an anomaly is not something most BLOPs gangs are going to want to take on. As for your turning rats to blues, that already happens. Try this. Put an alt ratting/tanking rats in an anomaly. Warp in your main and target paint, jam, damp, or scram your alt. Guess what the rats are now shooting your main. You guys already got that kind of a stealth buff awhile ago. It is horrible as it eliminated a whole style of ATK hunting of ratters using solo stealth bombers. Further, I donGÇÖt see how that is related to implicit threats at all. To be quite honest I donGÇÖt think you know what your own terminology means, and I donGÇÖt think you truly understand the game. This is a sandbox PvP MMO with a minimal set of rules where emergent game play is the goal and that emergence comes from the threat of PvP, implicit or explicit. I am pretty sure that most, if not all of the Devs would disagree with you on just about everything. Teckos, you have been following this discussion for a while. I find it disconcerting that you still have trouble grasping what I am saying. Implicit risk can be rephrased as volatility; or the difficulty in defining the chance of some undesirable outcome occurring. Some volatility is good, too little is bad, too much is bad. This is true across EvE. For example, some chance of being fooled in the market is good. Too much of a chance is bad. Transparent market mechanisms limit the implicit risk of contract dealings, but do not entirely extinguish them. Let the buyer beware. You are moving very close to making a straw man argument when you present my case as if I want to remove risk. I want implicit risk lowered to a point where is has an acceptable impact on player attrition. I would ideally want implicit risk molded into explicit and actual risk. I am quite aware that rats can turn blue under certain conditions. You called it a buff to ratters if I remember correctly. PvE-PvP integration is of course one way of rebalancing implicit risk. In the case of rat escorts, it reduces implicit risk to miners because it increases implicit risk to those wishing to target miners. The suggestion that a sov module turn rats blue removes the isk/hr argument as a counter...because those kind of modules cost isk/day. Its also a good storyline thing (why can't sov holders negotiate local truces with rats? Pay a ransom, get to operate without being attacked). [bypasses chaff about what you think about me. Geeze, do you never learn?]. I am pretty sure developers have identified the same mechanics I have that lower implicit threat in wormhole space to acceptable levels (we are assuming it is acceptable of course). You are of course entirely in your rights to think differently. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:00:50 - [142] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Local increases the efficacy of implicit threats. An implicit threat is one that is unstated, or in this game one that is not perceived. Local allows me to perceive threats. If a blue comes into system the level of implicit threat has gone up, after all he could be an AWOXer. If a neutral or hostile comes in the implicit threat has gone up substantially. None of these, by themselves are explicit threats. And explicit threat is when somebody lands on grid with you and locks you up. If local were changed over to a delayed chat, I would no longer perceive any threats in any of those circumstances. A hostile could come in, but heGÇÖll have no impact on my behavior because I perceive no threat. If I see a ship on d-scan then my level of implicit threat goes up. Notice that as I am able to get more information my level of threat changes. Using the no-local/d-scan example. If I detect an ishtar on scan my threat level goes up. If I also see a corp mate in corp chat or on comms saying he is in the same system as me and I ask if he is in an ishtar and he replies yesGÇªmy threat level goes down. Information changes the level of risk/threat one operates under. If I intend to disrupt the resource acquisition of my enemies, local is a tremendous tool for me to impose risk on my enemies. They know IGÇÖm there and that I am hostile to them. Local increases the efficacy of implicit threats. All local does is provide free intelligence. Or increases transparency. Now I do understand that the echo chamber has somehow established the fallacy that removing local lowers implicit threat based on wormhole mechanisms. The conclusion is quite illogical (and quite disrespectful of PvE players - how stupid do you think they are to assume an ignorance is bliss argument is valid?), and implicit threat reduction is more reasonably explained by examining other mechanisms found in wormhole space. I was interested in examining which they were, did so, and presented my finding here after tweaking them for null-sec relevance (the threat is after all about afk cloaky camping and implicit threat derived from it). Implicit threat is the threat of the unknown. Its counterpart is not no threat. Its counterpart is real and explicit threat. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:01:50 - [143] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Any mechanic where NPCs do things that players should be doing is generally speaking a bad mechanic as it is essentially having CCP do something players should be doing. Having rats GÇ£turned blueGÇ¥ and then used as a de facto CAP is CCP providing PvE pilots with a level of security. That is just horrible game design. CCP has already done this to some degree by having all EWAR modules draw aggression from rats. Personally, I find it a terrible change (even though I have benefitted from it on occasion). You have the right to your opinion of course. I find the possibilities inherent in PvP-PvE integration intriguing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:04:23 - [144] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: tbh, you should be honoured at least somebody still bothers replying. The answers to your questions have already been posted. Reposting is redundant. Edit: Clarification: you still haven't answered any of our question -- eg: present your case. Any conclusion based on false parallels or rejected assumptions is folly. I have found input in this thread to be remarkably non-constructive. Its been a while since you stopped being the choir I am preaching to. Mike generates some thought provoking perspectives that I use to mold my views. So all is good. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:09:21 - [145] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I'll give you something else to consider: with the recent nerfs to force projection (jump fatigue), psychological warfare is more important than ever; so when all is said and done, I'm happy there still is such a thing as asymmetrical, psychological threats. We need those -- after all, we're not playing chess here. Nerfing force projection was done to limit implicit threat. Super force projection in isolation is fine. Implicit threat paralysed capital fleet use, not the actual use of Supers. Implicit threat is fine at acceptable levels. Acceptable is defined as a level that gives acceptable player attrition. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:26:04 - [146] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: Now I do understand that the echo chamber has somehow established the fallacy that removing local lowers implicit threat based on wormhole mechanisms. False. The Echochamber raised an argument that stealth would imply remaining UNDETECTED. Having your name scream out in local chat "Look! There's a guy in system which you can't see!" defeats the very purpose. Wormholes are the very embodiment of "implicit threats" if you absolutely must use expensive words. I also believe The Echochamber pointed out nowhere's safer than sov null space. In fact, wormholes and nullsec have nothing in common. I am sure that issue was also raised. But it has no bearing on implicit risk besides increasing it if cloaks were enhance by some mechanism to make them stealthy in local. Wormholes are actually protected by mechanisms that lower implicit threat quite dramatically. I pointed out how earlier. I pointed out the metric (rat to ship deaths) for comparison was flawed, but my agenda is not to make things safer, I want less implicit threat and more explicit thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:35:35 - [147] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: The problem is you are spouting nonsensical gibberish and completely failing to respond to actual criticisms or responses to what you have written. Your standard response is a snooty, GÇ£You just donGÇÖt grasp the concept I am spouting.GÇ¥ Or you spout something like this: Jerghul wrote: Implicit risk can be rephrased as volatility; or the difficulty in defining the chance of some undesirable outcome occurring. Some volatility is good, too little is bad, too much is bad. First off, you basically admit that some level of implicit threat is good, part of what I have been saying. So it makes me wonderGÇªwho is having the comprehension problem. Second of all, WTFAYTA with volatility? And what does that have to do with the difficult of defining the chance of an undesirable outcome. To quote Inigo Montoya, I donGÇÖt think you know what that word (volatility) means. At least in how you mean it. A volatile situation is one where things can change quickly and for the worse. Having a hard time quantifying risk may or may not be volatile. For example, if I have a hard time quantifying riskGÇªthe underlying probability might be large or small which in turn would correspond to larger or smaller risk. Risk is a function of the probabilities and what is at stake. For example, if I am not sure if a gate is clear, if I undock in a velator and jump through the risk is low even if the probability is high IGÇÖll get ganked, because a velator is nearly worthless. Or, to put it differently, even with a probability of 1, the risk is low because 10=0. Or you belch forth this gem, Quote:* You are moving very close to making a straw man argument when you present my case as if I want to remove risk. IGÇÖm sorry, but you were the one who stated that enduring implicit threats are horribly bad game design. And when you get caught out like this you then say, GÇ£Oh, well yeah. You see, IGÇÖve evolved in my thought process and now I think GÇÿthisGÇÖ.GÇ¥ Removing implicit threatsGÇªor any threat is to reduce risk. Reducing implicit threats or any threats is to reduce risk. Pardon the fck out of me for reading your posts and actually taking your word at face value. And yet again you vomit this onto the forums, Quote:* I want implicit risk lowered to a point where is has an acceptable impact on player attrition. I would ideally want implicit risk molded into explicit and actual risk. But we donGÇÖt even know if AFK cloaking is even causing any player attrition. It might make people leave a **** alliance that can handle goobers cloaked in ventures (Hell, IGÇÖd leave too). But that does not mean they are leaving the game. And there are more risks in this game than just AFK cloaking. Risks and threats and the follow through on those risks and threatsGÇöi.e. PvPGÇöis what makes this game so interesting for so many of us. Reducing that, in fact, could be one reason why players are leaving. Seriously, AFK cloaking is a small niche part of the game when one considers all the things they can doGÇªbut it is the problem with player retention? And here you completely failed to grasp the point, Quote:** I am quite aware that rats can turn blue under certain conditions. You called it a buff to ratters if I remember correctly. PvE-PvP integration is of course one way of rebalancing implicit risk. In the case of rat escorts, it reduces implicit risk to miners because it increases implicit risk to those wishing to target miners. I am not saying having an NPC escort will not reduce risk. What IGÇÖm saying is that reduction in risk should be done by the players. Form your own damn escort, donGÇÖt go crying to CCP like a little girl with a skinned knee asking them to protect your stuff. So here we have you contradicting yourself and basically expressing a shallow understanding of what is being discussed. Then you take a superior tone in your posts as if everyone else here but you is a blithering idiot. However, I think that most of us realize who the blithering idiot is. [Chaff removed] Volatility. I am using it in a sense relevant to for example backgammon. Or variance in poker. Its hardly an unknown principle in games. Developers know that the "psychological impact" of some player activities are undesirably high. Drawing the doted line between player satisfaction if impacted, and them playing something else in the Steam Library instead is hardly a huge leap. But I have accepted that devs should generate hard data before drawing firm conclusions. There is no need to keep on rehashing this point. I have been consistent with my stated objective, and modified my views after reading things here and other places. Which of course is the whole point of discussion in the first place. You should try it some time. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 20:56:38 - [148] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: You haven't actually ran any gas sites or Arkonor belts, have you? Imagine those neutralizer batteries and towers and shenannigans were on your side, why, you'd simply warp in a Prospect and start mining away I presume? Wrong again. So much wrong. Must ... restrain ... myself I am glad your straw man amuses you. You are very cute when you play with that doll . Who knows what defences rats will bother to muster when they have a sov-holder paying them ransom money to use sites. I rather imagine that would be up to the developers and how they script it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 21:04:27 - [149] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: I am glad your straw man amuses you. You are very cute when you play with that doll . Hey, come on man. Personal attacks are not constructive to the debate Feel free to use the report function so moderators can review the last few pages of this thread if you feel the way I classified your type of argument was in any way hurtful " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 22:15:01 - [150] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: On topic then, if you're inclined to discarding my proposal as a strawman. Did you, or did you not write THIS: Jerghul wrote: PvE-PvP integration is of course one way of rebalancing implicit risk. In the case of rat escorts, it reduces implicit risk to miners because it increases implicit risk to those wishing to target miners. The suggestion that a sov module turn rats blue removes the isk/hr argument as a counter...because those kind of modules cost isk/day. Its also a good storyline thing (why can't sov holders negotiate local truces with rats? Pay a ransom, get to operate without being attacked). Does that, or does it not, say you want to turn the rats BLUE to you -- or, in other words, have them shoot your enemies but not your miners? Yes? Then how can you consider what I wrote a troll of any kind? You said that man. Please consider what you write before throwing it out like that. I merely pointed out the extend of your misgivings. It does not say that I want to turn rats blue to me. I was pretty clear on it being an example of transferring implicit risk from miners to pilots hunting miners. Meant as an illustrative point to show that pvp pilots dislike implicit risk intensely too. But we knew that from the implicit risk hotdropping supers represented. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 22:21:49 - [151] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Volatility. I am using it in a sense relevant to for example backgammon. Or variance in poker. Its hardly an unknown principle in games. Ahhh. Wrong type of thinking, IGÇÖm afraid. Games of chance have very well defined probabilities and probability distributions. Here we donGÇÖt. A player cloaked in a system is either AFK or he is not. When he is AFK the threat level is zero. When he is not the threat level is not zero. As for other people in the system the probabilities are completely subjective. For a player who defaults to docking up and logging or going AFK himself he has, implicitly, set the probability of not being AFK to 1. This is typically what Mike does, for example. In the past, when faced with the problem I looked the name in local up, looked up the corporation, etc. And set a probability much lower. Low enough that I undocked and ratted away. So while your concept of volatility might be useful, IGÇÖm just not seeing it. Further, I still donGÇÖt see a problem. This is the kind of thing that makes the game more challenging if not even fun. Knowing that you are defeating the AFK cloaker (if his goal is to deny resources) by ratting in a fleet and getting even more resourcesGÇªthat is good game play. My alliance did this on a deployment to Outer Ring. The locals pretty much docked up so weGÇÖd undock in PvP fits, our scanner would scan down various sites and weGÇÖd run them in our PvP ships, about 10-15 of us. WeGÇÖd burn them down surprisingly fast and the idea was weGÇÖd get something, the locals wouldnGÇÖt and we had fun doing. And even though this was their staging system they never tried to mess with us they showed up in local, but there we were PvEing away. You think poker and backgammon are games of chance? Heh. We should play sometime. I think you are overrating somewhat the joys that can be gained from frustrating an afk alt a few hours a day. Not that you are frustrating it really. It still kept the locals out of space. Yes, I had mentioned that example of trying to lessen implicit risk earlier. Go on roams and pve instead of gatecamping or whatever. If that is what you want to spend your corp peak time doing, then good for you. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 22:36:56 - [152] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Developers know that the "psychological impact" of some player activities are undesirably high. Sure. In some cases it can be high, in others not so much. I think you forgot a very popular word in the English language, GÇÿcanGÇÖ. It can have a big psychological impact. But back when I was ratting with an AFK camper in system with me in Cloud RingGÇªapparently it wasnGÇÖt big enough. Quote: Drawing the doted line between player satisfaction if impacted, and them playing something else in the Steam Library instead is hardly a huge leap. Other than that you have nothing to back it up with, and noting that there are other things a player can do in game. That is the beauty of things like jump clones. GÇ£Oh, system camped, nobody else onGÇªdamn, IGÇÖll JC into HS and run missions or incursions, orGÇª[insert other activites].GÇ¥ Quote: But I have accepted that devs should generate hard data before drawing firm conclusions. There is no need to keep on rehashing this point. Translation: Everything you've written is speculation piled on top of too small a sample--i.e. pretty much useless. Quote: What miner allied belt rats would do is transfer implicit risk from miner to pilots wanting to attack miners. Belt rats are not particularly dangerous, but they add a degree of random to any attack on a mining ship. Uffda, the horror. Yes, I know. I even said that, and it is still ****** game design as it is something the players should do. If a miner is facing too much riskGÇªthen find a way to deal with it. Get more people out there with you. DonGÇÖt ask CCP to hold your hand. I defined the impact as something that caused to high player attrition. Thus firmly delegating it to devs to quantify and make calls. Its a big numbers game, so they will get it right (statistics has a way of dealing with "can"). I actually did a decent analysis based on uncertain premise. Which is why you keep returning to the premise. Which we know is weak as we do not have the data. Note my use of we. Anecdotal evidence changes nothing. Yes, I think we have grasped that you are not fond of PvE-PvP integration. I think we also know I find it intriguing. Yay us and our differences in opinion. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.11 23:20:47 - [153] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: I defined the impact as something that caused to high player attrition. Assuming that which should be proven is just sloppy thinking. No point to read any further as it all hinges on an unsupported claim. Further, why was player attrition "high" back in 2009 or 2010...you know that stretch of time you were in an NPC corp, and probably not playing the game? The premise is actually conditional: If player attrition is too high, then the devs should, can and will do some things. Here are some things they can do if player attrition is too high. The analysis of "some things" does not stand and fall on if player attrition is too high or not. You could be critical of the leap between psychological impact and people impacted deciding to spend time doing other things than play Eve. It is however a reasonable assumption. Eve-offline does not show attrition directly, so I could not verify if it was high or not. I know hitting bots and multiboxing has a pretty decent impact on the number of online "pilots". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 00:39:31 - [154] - Quote Teckos Straw man arguments are not constructive. Implicit threat is derived from afk cloaky camping and a number of things. Implicit threat is not the only cause of player attrition I am not suggesting player attrition caused by implicit threat is higher, lower or the same as it was yesterday, last month or in 2009. I am merely suggesting that there are tested remedies if developers decide implicit threat caused attrition is too high. We don't know if players are leaving the game in droves. All we know is that fewer pilots are online simultaneously. We could be for healthy reasons (less bots, less multiboxing, less need for multiple accounts, less need to have eve as a 2nd job...or only job in what probably is a scary number of cases), but is probably combined with a generally more competitive gaming market (there are decent alternatives to eve). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 00:45:40 - [155] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Once again, isn't it weird how, no matter whom you talk to, "high player attrition" is closely tied to their personal bugbear? In the gatecamps thread last week, low sec gatecamps were causing HIGH PLAYER ATTRITION! In another, it was "ILLEGAL HIGH SEC PODDING", in another it was because war decs are too easy to avoid, and in yet another, it was because war decs are unfair and grrr, war decs. Damn near everyone thinks THEIR thing is important to retention, no matter what the thing is. Shockingly, they all find it very objectionable when it is suggested that they should provide some numbers or objective data to back up this extraordinary claim that they are making. Pretty much in complete agreement. I suggest it be considered corollary to MalcanisGÇÖ Law: That whenever there is a suggested change to the mechanics to address player retention, in reality the change will benefit the self-interests of those suggesting the change. Its still not about me, friend. It was quite notable when after reviewing my points of wormhole mechanisms and saw there were things isk/hr proponents would never favour. So suddenly I was a troll. Until it was time to recycle some kind of ulterior motivation. As if that is relevant in any way. But carry on. Why not mutually "like" each others posts a bit more? EvE facebook is grrreat " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 01:31:45 - [156] - Quote Updated, expanded and edited. It has emerged that the AFK cloaky camping is not problem when viewed in isolation. However, implicit threat derived from afk cloaky camping and other game features (perhaps most spectacularly was the implicit threat derived from the perceived danger of hot dropping supers). The concept implicit threat has been examined thoroughly in some areas, and continuing to consider it in other areas has strong merit. Particularly in areas that are important to the majority of EvE players. This is due to the likelihood that implicit threat does play a role in player attrition. Implicit risk should likely be dealt with using mechanisms that lower it to acceptable levels. Acceptable levels are defined as those giving acceptable player retention. Implicit risk should not be mitigated by changing mechanisms it is derived from unless there is no other option. Implicit risk seems to be at acceptable levels in wormhole space. This is surprising. Wormhole local considered in isolation increases implicit risk. Therefore, other compensating mechanisms in wormhole space must have reduced implicit risk to acceptable levels. An presentation of compensating wh mechanisms adapted for 0-sec that reduce implicit risks in wormholes 1. Rats 2.0 The sleeper lesson: Break up the tailored tanks by adding more omni damage ships in rat fleets (imagine the rats cross trade ships. Mix it up a bit) More ewar rats that can act as surrogate tackle for ratting vessels A bit stronger sites to make it more small gang pvp'ish These measures would protect ratters from themselves basically. Trend towards making ratters more small gang pvp ready. 2. Closing gates Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson: Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links. A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut) Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system. 3. Natural phenomena Modifiers let wormhole players tailor ships and skills specifically for the environment they live in. This lowers implicit risk as visitors must either fight at a disadvantage, or arrive after a solid amount of premeditation. Allow sov holders to tailor a system's local combat ecosystem using infrastructure modules. Perhaps combined with star types in normal space also giving lesser combat modifiers. 4. No clones The ability to swap clones increases implicit threat. Players risk trapping themselves into flying with implants they cannot afford to use or not flying at all (because they want to keep an expensive set active the next 24 hours) due to the 24 flip over time between possible swaps. A trap a wormhole pilot avoids by clones being semi-permanently unavoidable. Implicit risk can be lowered reducing the time between flips to something significantly less than 24 hours, or by going the other way and making it significantly more than 24 hours in null-sec (up to never changing clones in null-sec for the same thing as wormholes). 5. No cyno Decreases implicit risk. Sov holders access to an infrastructure module that closes cyno-generation possibilities in a null-sec system. Cynosural System Jammer. Devs should and will play around with the mechanics and costs (real and opportunity) to increase usage frequency somewhat. 6. No local Increases implicit risk. That no local works in wormhole space validates the efficiency of the above compensating measures. 7. Ship limitations in system Possibly a marginal problem for select players but does not represent an implicit threat of any consequence for day-to-day play. 8. The special snowflake argument Often presented as unique characteristics present in wh players that allow them to thrive were others would perish. Mechanisms described above give a more plausible exploration of implicit threat. 9. Removal of local Would in isolation increase implicit threat. Its success explained by the above mechanisms. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 01:35:03 - [157] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: I guess I should send a mail to all the big alliances/coalitions in the game that mindgames and psychological warfare are causing people to leave the game, so they should stop making propaganda posters and stop spying on each other. Not to mention all the other things that can cause people to feel bad... There are very few games that allow for such things and Eve is one of the best at it. Learn to deal with it or quit playing Everything in my last post is already in the game. Were you suggesting they be removed so players with those advantages could toughen up some (or quit playing)? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 10:10:49 - [158] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Now Teckos, don't attack the poster. Argue his post. There is meat to some of it, though I personally think he is on the wrong track. You can't. He never responds to a substantive criticism. How odd of you to say that. My position on mechanic details has shifted quite a bit since I first posted in this thread and I have rehashed things many time in response to virtually any criticism. Anyway... Brokk Thanks for the feedback. I know some of it is non-linear, so lets walk through it point by point. "1. Wrong. Scrambling / neuting rats with omni DPS and tank have absolutely nothing to do with implicit risks nor with AFK Cloaking. If anything, getting scrammed increases your risk." It increases explicit and real risk and decreases implicit risk. A ship (or ships) prepared to fight these kind of rats is not something you are going to sandbag on a whim. It also subjects attackers to a bit higher implicit risk. God knows if those rats might tackle you and leave you with in a pod, particularly if you try to tackle the ratter (but you are unlikely to get podded by ratter or rats at least). The sum of both decreases implicit risk (or the psychological impact of cloaks and other things) Cue constructive input. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 12:21:23 - [159] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Did he just admit to repeatedly changing the goal posts? And what is the primary purpose of discussion? I see it as a vehicle for the exchange and development of ideas. I am sure you have a completely different understanding. That I will humour. likes Kaarouses post " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 13:03:03 - [160] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: only thing being , your ideas keep getting worse. The reason I told how things are done in wormholes, was to show that birth l both places have their own ways of securing their PVE-activities, but that there should still be risk. It's not that wormholes are safer or seem safer than sov null. We just accept the risk of getting blown up even if we do everything right. After a while you just assume you are getting ganked and act , not expect perfect safety. What you want is to make the small risk in sov-null even smaller. In eve, the implied risk is there the moment you undock. Act . There are plenty of ways to make the chance smaller. What you find to be seems to correspond with living in highsec combined with the Intel and early warnings you get from sov-null You could argue the specific points if you wished. The one we are on now is how strong, omni damage rats reduce implicit risk. I am showing why it reduces implicit risk in wormhole space and that there is no doubt transferring the risk reducing mechanism more systematically to null-sec would reduce risk there. You are free to disagree, but it would be constructive to dispute the actual argument I am making in the specific case. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.12 23:57:14 - [161] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: a topic best left to the PvE'ers among us, but here's my 2 cents: changing the nature of the rats may change people's fits or choice of ships somewhat; although this 'implicit threat' you keep referring to never came from rats anyway. Why would this risk suddenly decrease? Not saying EvE couldn't use an overhaul on rats, but as far as AFK cloaking goes ..... ?? If you're suggesting people rat in fleets and not gimp their fits, then we're way ahead of you son. But with "sandbox" and all, can't force people to do so. Overhauling PvE mechanics still feels like a very indirect way to approach the psychological terror of someone hunting in your your system, AFK or otherwise. Next? The "implicit threat" would decrease if rats did omni damage because people would switch to omni tanks like they do for PvP. So you've be able to "tank" better--no resist hole(s) to shoot into. And as far as 1-on-1 fights go that would likely be a good change since it would get people out ratting (give the cloaker a target) and give the ratter a chance to survive/win the fight. Similarly ratting in a fleet allows for more of an omni tank fit, maybe even things like points. So you'd be a really tough nut for even the biggest BLOPs gang to take on. The risk would decrease since lots of fleets/gangs would pass you by. Edit: Not that I agree with Jerghul, that is just how I see it working to reduce the implicit threats. That is about correct. Tougher null-sec rats would also support cooperative play better by making solo ratting more time consuming. Remember, we are just looking at things that have lowered implicit risk to acceptable levels in wormhole space as they would might be adapted to null-sec. No one has to commit to saying they actually want it in null sec. The only baby you have to kill to understand my reasoning better is the illusion that there is something unique about wormhole pilots that makes them immune to the impact of implicit risk. I do not believe that to be the case. I simply think wormhole space has lower implicit risk due to mechanisms found there. Mags, Brokk, Wander Tougher rats (as specified - omni ewar creatures) gives tougher ratting ships better prepared for pvp action. It lowers their vulnerability to opportunistic predators. Making afk cloaky ships less of a concern. Or decreases implicit threat as the dangerous hostile ship envelope contracts significantly. Additionally, ewar rats increases implicit risk for attackers. They suffer a greater chance of being tackled, then killed. Particularly if if also using tackle (which automatically makes them primary rat targets). This in effect transfers implicit risk from ratter to attacker. Basically, when a ratting ship is fitted to deal with a real and explicit threat from rats that resemble the threat it faces from pvp, explicit threat (from rats) is increased and implicit threat (from players) is decreased. ======= Is there any more feedback on the first point? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 02:55:00 - [162] - Quote Wander If you want to run with the special mindset argument, then think of it terms of lower implicit threat being conductive to creating a desirable mindset. In the rat case we are looking at; it should be obvious that it is easier to have a "damn the torpedoes" mindset if your ship is more or less pvp fit anyway (or does your mindset not vary depending on the ship you are flying and the way the ship is fitted?). Mags Then you see how the wormhole type rats reduce implicit threat. Its not exactly rocket science as you said :-). Ashtaroth We have sort of run with Fozie thinking cloaked ships are ok for the last number of pages. Afk cloaky campers were never really the problem anyway. The issue rests with the psychological impact they cause. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 03:23:44 - [163] - Quote Ashtaroth Drakin wrote: Jerghul wrote: Ashtaroth We have sort of run with Fozie thinking cloaked ships are ok for the last number of pages. Afk cloaky campers were never really the problem anyway. The issue rests with the psychological impact they cause. How do they perform this psychological impact? Why are players affected by it? Why is it so effective? The term I have been using is implicit threat. Lots of things cause it in game. Hotdropping supers are an implicit threat. Wh-style local is an implicit threat. To name two other examples. The last one I hope short-circuited the line your query was leading up to. The interesting thing about no local is why the implicit threat equivalent of afk cloaky camping on speed does not break wh space. I am currently exploring what I call mechanisms specific to wormhole space that lower implicit threat of both afk cloaky camping and no local to comfortable levels. Right now I am looking at strong, omni rats as a compensating mechanism. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 09:42:21 - [164] - Quote Wander The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types. Asharoth My position is more that if you have compensating mechanisms, then the price of information provided by local does not matter. Surrender Did you have any feedback that might suggest that changing null sec rats would not change null sec ratting fittings? Teckos So nothing more then on the ratting point I presented? ========= If we are about done with the ratting point, then I suggest we move on to point 2/8. "2. Closing gates Collapsing wormhole strategy lesson: Allow gates to be closed and opened using entosis links. A visual prompt on opposite side of gate to indicate if gate is currently being entosised (open or shut) Simulates intentional wormhole collapses used to control access into a wh-system." I trust it is rather self-explanatory that closing gates reduces implicit risk. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 10:36:09 - [165] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's a stonewall troll right there. Closing gates....lol What an absolute nonsense. A child of 5 could see why. You see why closing gates in nullsec (mirroring the ability to collapse wormholes in wh space) decreases implicit threat I trust. Which was the only question at hand. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 11:09:43 - [166] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wander The same thing that would stop you from omni tanking in wormhole space if rats there did specific damage types. So basically what you are trying to not tell is that you could already omni-tank the ratters, but won't because isk/hohour. It's starting to look like the reason AFK-cloAFK-cloakers are an issue is because of entitlement and greed Or it could be because EvE is generally about optimizing whatever you are doing. There is a reason people in engineering are shall we say a bit over-represented in Eve. The game appeals to our oh so slightly autistic inner engineer. From your post perspective we could say that perhaps wormholes need a pass to rebalance net isk/hr rates. We would not want it be said that wormhole mechanics should remain static because of some feeling of entitlement and greed after all, would we? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 12:31:36 - [167] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: The only consensus we've reached is that your ideas are bad for multitude of reasons, which you choose to ignore. It doesn't matter what kind of a change you make, the only thing that would satisfy the people who have an issue with a neutral in local sitting cloaked somewhere, is a magic wand that would make the rattimg risk free surrounded by Intel-channels and the early warning system that is local Geeze, Get a real life McJob for 500 mill/isk hr equivalent (or whatever) after you plexed it into Eve if you want to maximize your isk/hr. People like to optimize in Eve is all. And like to feel there is optimizing balance. We seem to have reached a consensus that wh space omni rat types reduce implicit risk. I have seen no feedback that suggest disagreement on that point that has not been discussed sufficiently. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 13:11:39 - [168] - Quote Wander Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships. However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common. The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning. Mags We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 13:40:06 - [169] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wander Ratters tend to optimize their fittings to kill rats and clear sites as fast as possible. Which means the ships are already as powerful versus specific rats types and as expensive as the ratter can afford to lose. Harder rats simply reduces the numbers killed per hour. Omni type damage and ewar capable rats would also not entail more expensive ships. However, it is likely that cooperative ratting would become more common. The only specific thing achieved is reducing the amount of yolo opportunistic predation. Which does reduce the things ratters need to worry about (or reduces implicit risk). Successful ratter killing would require a greater degree of pre-meditation, coordination, and planning. Mags We still seem to have consensus that wh style rats reduce implicit threat. Feel free to make your argument if you feel that is not the case. Wander When the isk/hour drops because of more difficult rats, most will just justo to the next best isk/hour and that won't be ratting in groups. They will see that they can do the same isk with less risk in highsec, so null will get more quiet and there will be less targets. And if you think that won't happen, you are a fool Which still leaves us with reduced implicit threat, even if we were to assume that isk/hr does fall with wh style rats. Which seems an odd assumption: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=410322 Mags Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 13:52:25 - [170] - Quote Wander I think you are wrong in concluding isk/hr decreases with wh style rats (see link I provided). But we can note that down as something to avoid (isk/hour can be tweaked easily by manipulating drop rates or bounty levels for example). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:17:55 - [171] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Jerghul wrote: Wander I think you are wrong in concluding isk/hr decreases with wh style rats (see link I provided). But we can note that down as something to avoid (isk/hour can be tweaked easily by manipulating drop rates or bounty levels for example). I can't believe you still don't get it. No matter how much you tweak the rats, the risk will be the same or worse. You will either end up back where you started or drive people to do their PVE somewhere else. As long as there is a unknown name in local, people won't risk it. This isn't a mechanical problem in the game, it's a mental problem in the head of sov-null ratters. They think they are entitled to complete safety because . It already is THE safest place to do PVE in. The only way the attackers have of disrupting that safety-net that is local and Intel-channels, is to make that local be something you cannot rely on 100Gäà Yes, I get that you think that non-wormhole PvE activity is only done by the mentally and morally deficient. However, that was not the question at hand. My query related to looking at wormhole mechanisms that reduce implicit risk as they might look if mirrored into nullsec. 1/8 was in regards to wh style rats. 2/8 was in regards to closing null sec gates that mirror wh players collapsing wormholes to restrict access. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:30:46 - [172] - Quote Mag's wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Ok. Feel free to disagree for reasons of your own. It is noted. You mean you'll carry on ignoring arguments that prove you wrong. How about you get back on topic and stop fudging the subject matter? I am on topic. The problem is not afk, cloaky camping. The problem is implicit risk derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. To mitigate the perception of afk cloak camping as an issue - reduce implicit risk. How is implicit risk reduced in wh space where cloaky camping is not perceived as a problem? What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk and the perception of afk cloaky camping as an issue look like in null-sec? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:40:09 - [173] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: What would the wh mechanisms that reduce implicit risk There's no such thing, that's the whole point. Your entire premise is false. Feel free to substitute implicit risk with "pretty big psychological effect" if you prefer the term used by a CCP developer. I know the logic is not completely linear, but geeze... Edit Or you could use the term "feel safer" instead of "lower implicit risk" if you want. For example: Do you see how having an omni tank might make a ratter feel safer? Do you see how collapsing wormholes or closing gates might make a ratter feel safer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:45:10 - [174] - Quote Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:50:17 - [175] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jerghul wrote: Mags Lets run with that. Its on the list anyway. How exactly does not having local make ratters feel safer? It doesn't. They just have a spine. Yes, they do. They have a spine And a lot of mechanisms that protect them and make them feel safer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:54:18 - [176] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Except they do not have any such protection. Again you simply fail to understand that certain people have a certain level of risk they'll accept. Half these nullbears would be better served in highsec. Do wormhole ratters collapse wormholes because they have a spine, or because doing so makes them feel safer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:08:44 - [177] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: That would be the primarily the former, given what is involved with it. The way holes work is a double edged sword, completely. But I'm wasting my time. You have no idea how these things work. Frankly you're nothing more than a cast iron troll. We are actually looking at how things that reduce implicit threat in wh space might look in null sec. Closing (and opening) gates with entosis links would seem to be an obvious thing that would reduce implicit threat (or in your words be primarily something that shows spine given that it is a double edged sword, completely). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:22:56 - [178] - Quote Morrigan and Mags Oh, I think the people that understand my points understand them perfectly well. They are the choir I am preaching to mostly anyway. What I am doing is offering the opportunity to provide meaningful input. 1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat. Nothing said so far has changed that. You would see this much clearer if you just let go of the conception that some groups of pilots are morally superior to others. It is not particularly convincing and is also pretty unhelpful (future game development emphasis should obviously be weighed heavily towards PvE content and PvE ships if your conception is correct. The morally superior group is simply too small to warrant much attention). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:38:04 - [179] - Quote 1/8 Wh type rats reduces implicit threat. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat. 3/8 Natural phenomena 3/8 Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit risk is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about. Any comments to that? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 15:52:29 - [180] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You're still ignoring the fact all your points are fundamentally wrong. But carry on sperging, why not. I am giving you the opportunity to indicate why you think each point is wrong Morrigan. It does not presume that you accept the premise, nor that you want wormhole mechanisms mirrored in null sec. It simply is a question of reviewing how you think the point would impact on implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect/feeling of safety. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:01:47 - [181] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: And you've been told by multiple people, multiple times why they're either mistake/bad/combination of both. Yet you insist on ignoring all of it and charging on regardless. Some of them are SO bad, they should not require explanation as they're nothing short of a 2/10 troll. They are just mechanisms in wormhole space that reduce Fozie's "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping and other things. They are neither mistakes, bad, or a combination of both. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 16:12:00 - [182] - Quote Morrigan You probably should try to address the points, not the man making them for just a little bit. Brokk just asked moderators to review the thread. I think characterizing vast groups of EvE players as "spineless" to be a weak argument (and probably against forum rules since brokk brought that up). There are perfectly good mechanical explanations for why afk cloaky camping is not a worm hole problem. I am trying to identify what they are and what they would look like in null sec. Nothing more and nothing less. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:09:02 - [183] - Quote Quote: Premise Afk cloaky camping is not a problem. Implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect derived from afk cloaky camping is something the developers are looking at. Implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect derived from afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wormhole space. There are good reasons for that. Argument The good reasons for why implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect from afk cloaky camping are mechanical. Goal Find the mechanical good wormhole reasons and apply them to null-sec to see what they look like there. 1/8 Wormhole style rats reduces the implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping. 2/8 Closing/opening gates reduces implicit threat/quite a big psychological effect. stemming from afk cloaky camping 3/8 Natural phenomena 3/8 Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about. Morrigan I am systematically going through the points. Comments like "you are wrong, that is stupid, you are a troll" are not really constructive and merely serve to fill up the thread with chaff. Consider using phrasing like "I disagree because" or similar. Please point out any pertinent points I may have missed in the clutter as we move forward. Brokk The ignorance is bliss argument is not very convincing. No local looks is more afk cloaky camping on speed than a solution to the implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping. See point 3. under Wander for details. Wander 1. Afk cloaky camping is not a problem in null-sec or anywhere for that matter (Fozielaw). The problem is implicit threat/big psychological effect that stems from afk cloaky camping that the devs are looking into (Fozielaw). The devs think there are good reasons for why implicit risk/big psychological effect does not occur in wormhole space (Fozielaw), and that we may be surprised by how they decide to address the issue (Fozielaw). 2. Absolute security is a bit beside the point. I am just looking for mechanical reasons that makes implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping not a problem in wormhole space. I am not trying to make them work in null-sec either. I am just examining what they might look like. 3. I am just saying that the game mechanics that lower implicit risk/big psychological effect stemming from AFK camping are likely the same game mechanics that lower implicit threat/big psychological effect you might expect would stem from no local. So yah, the game mechanics that reduce implicit threat/big psychological effect are probably very powerful (you used the term lunacy to describe what their mirror image looked like in 0-sec did you not?). It follows that no local is an option for null-sec that could easily be introduced along with other compensating mechanisms that reduce implicit threat/big psychological effect stemming from AFK cloaky camping. Mike The man has said afk cloaky camping is ok (Fozielaw). Not much point in flogging that horse. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 19:31:37 - [184] - Quote Teckos Typo. I meant implicit threat/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping that devs are looking into. You seem to be arguing that omni damage rats like those found in wormhole space amounts to unacceptable player coddling. I would agree with the sentiment if we removed the word unacceptable. In my opinion omni damage wh type rats do reduce the implicit threat/big psychological effect stemming from afk cloaky camping. For reasons given earlier. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 20:04:19 - [185] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Okay, so you are not going to define risk, implicit or otherwise...so it can mean whatever you want it to mean, essentially rubbish. It can technically mean anything the developers want it to mean. Its enough to know that the devs think there are good reasons for why afk cloaky camping is no problem in wormhole space, and that the implicit threat/big psychological effect from afk cloaky camping is something they are looking into. All I am doing is looking at good reasons (I call them mechanisms) and seeing what they look like if mirrored in null-sec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.13 21:24:28 - [186] - Quote Technically, you mean the developers have no reason for looking into the big psychological effect they think they have identified, but have not bothered to define for us. I will just continue to look into the reasons for why afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wormhole space under the assumption that Fozie knows what he is talking about. Feel free to contribute if you like. Or not. It is entirely up to you. Right now I am looking for feedback on "natural phenomena", or unique ecosystems. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 11:47:26 - [187] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jerghul wrote: Technically, you mean the developers have no reason for looking into the big psychological effect they think they have identified, but have not bothered to define for us. You understand that where he said "We understand it has a pretty big psychological effect," that he didn't, in any way, describe that as a bad thing. That's an entirely fictitious invention all your own. You are literally making things up. My goodness. I am not the one projecting normative moralism into this thread. You guys are. "EvE should be this, Eve should be that, Jerghul is such a meanie, I am going to tell on that meanie, Carbears suck, wormholers are soooo hipster..." (I am paraphrasing sentiment, not quoting verbatim). I pity my kids. The living hell grammar school must be. Good, bad who cares? The Devs have identified a big psychological effect they are going to mitigate with mechanisms that work in wormhole space. There is no other way to read fozie's post. Morrigan We have discussed most of the salient points in the first link you know. But I am not adverse to rehashing them if you insist. Surrender monkey proving that IF rats are harder, Then fewer of them die seems to me to be non-salient (it would just lead to discussion of ship deaths per hour of ratting anyway. We know wormhole ratting is far more lucrative than null-sec ratting...so where do you think that sidetrack will end up taking us?= " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 12:16:39 - [188] - Quote On natural phenomena Brokk: "Wrong. These phenomena do not mitigate risk at all -- at the very best the offender would pick another doctrine, though most of the time you're still hosed since the attacker has the element of surprise on his side; such as high DPS/neuts/solid tackle and range dictation. And here, too, is it inconceivable a sov holder can magically alter the galaxy by sheer force of will. Not to mention this has nothing to do with AFK Cloaking." Jerghul: "Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about." Addendum This of course has everything to do with afk cloaky camping as the "big psychological effect" derived from it, and we are looking at things in wormhole space that can decrease the "big psychological effect" caused by afk cloaky camping. Tecklos If the Devs choose a direct nerf on cloaks like you seem to suggest, then a scanning mechanism is too prone abuse. A cloaky ship could be hunted down by a cloaky ship. Which I reckon cloaky ships being hunted would find unfair. A cloak suppressor infrastructure module similar to the cyno suppressor would be my guess. But I think dealing with the "big psychological impact" directly through compensating mechanisms is a better course than nerfing cloaks. I can see why people would prefer cloak nerfs. I would just prefer different solutions. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 15:03:52 - [189] - Quote Quote: CCP Fozie wrote: It's very important that it be possible to disrupt peoples' money-making in nullsec, and AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways. We're not worried about cloaked ships being overpowered because cloaked ships do very little DPS. But we understand it has a pretty big psychological effect. We would like to make some changes...it may not be the changes people are expecting, though. For instance, I can tell you that AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space and there are pretty good reasons for that Wander Fozie said that the changes may not be what we are expecting and then referred to wh space. Its not much of a leap. But nothing is given of course. Time will tell. I am not trying to predict what changes may or may not come from wormhole space. I am itemizing mechanisms or "pretty good reasons" that make afk cloaking not an issue in wormhole space and seeing what they might look like in null-sec. Entosing gates open/shut, or placing combat modules right beside gates (a different way of "closing" gates) would certainly shake things up in null sec. But that is really a topic for a different thread if we do agree that closing gates (or gate surrogates) lessens the "pretty big psychological effect" afk cloaky camping has. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 15:56:21 - [190] - Quote Karous Well, the echo chamber that gives you all your thoughts on Eve immediately leapt to "woot, Fozie is talking about wh-local. Yay!" I am not for or against introducing some, any, or all of the "good reasons for that" afk cloaks are not an issue in wormhole space. I am interested in itemizing what those reasons might be, and examining what their null-sec equivalents could look like. Brokk If you still do not understand what "pretty big psychological effect" Fozie is speaking of, then I cannot help you. People worry about what is reasonably likely to happen. Its reasonable to expect a few yolo morons try to emulate a tactic they stole off redit. An actual well-thought out and pre-meditated attack is much less likely. I don't fly anything that would be embarrassing to lose that could be lost to yolo morons is the short of it. But its still not about me, friend. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 16:21:38 - [191] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Jerghul wrote: But its still not about me, friend. Then maybe you should let the guys whom it does concern speak for themselves? At any rate, if they were "yolo morons" we'd be having a good laugh at their expense. Judging by the endless threads, however, it would seem the yolo is real Never underestimate your enemy. One one hand you claim it is a technique used in sov warfare - on the other hand you blurt out they're nothing but a handful of yoloscum. Please pick and choose what exactly you're trying to argue; right now you're just vomiting words. And yes, that IS about you. I may not always agree with Mike, nor did I always agree with Mag's or Teckos or Kaarous ; but they at least took a stand and argued their side of the story. You're merely shifting position on a whim, claiming both one thing and its exact opposite at the same time. This is pointless. Please note that any lack of reply from now on is not because I agree but because I give up. It is used in sov warfare. It is also used by yolo morons who are trying to copy some idea they ripped off redit to justify a bloated sense of leet skillz and use of pirate emoticons. These groups are not mutually exclusive and both contribute to the "pretty big psychological impact" Fozie is talking about. It is up to you if wish to contribute or not. But there is a certain wisdom in disengaging from an argument you simply do not understand. There may be hope for you yet " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 16:52:21 - [192] - Quote Wander Still not about me. I have tried to be pretty clear on what my agenda is. It has changed. So I apologize for it not being clear despite my best efforts. You do not really need to know what mechanisms reduce a "pretty big psychological effect" to enjoy the reduction, and easy answers do cloud the issue ("we are a breed apart" is a comfortable wh answer that sort of stops further thought on the matter for example). So I am rather unsurprised that you have never met anyone pointing out that flying with implants they can afford to lose makes them less worried about being podded (to name one example). I am not insisting you agree on every detail in an analytical approach either. There is room for disagreement, though not in absolute terms as we are simply looking at things that can reduce a "pretty big psychological effect" without there being any certainty if they do - or if they do not (a pedant might argue that virtually anything has at some point in EvE history reduced a pretty big psychological effect for at least 1 player. But we are looking at the big picture, so that line of thinking is not relevant). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 17:09:29 - [193] - Quote Wander I addressed every point you made. its not about me. This is an analytical discussion. Make your point about the argument instead of about pedigree requirements. Rephase. I apologized that my agenda did not come across clearer. Mechanics discussion not taking place. That did not surprise me. There is no reason to chat about underlying mechanisms Off the mark. Well, make the argument. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 17:45:39 - [194] - Quote You limit and define the scope when studying something analytically (What do they teach at school these days?) If you want to explore what mechanisms are specific to low-sec lessen a pretty big psychological effect that cloaks cause in null-sec, then be my guest. Hell, I might even contribute. I am interested in examining what reasons (mechanisms) in wh space that lessen a pretty big psychological effect cloaks cause to the point of them not being an issue. Did you want me to add a sentence saying "however, further study into how afk cloaks impact on other areas of space is recommended"? I can do that " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 17:59:42 - [195] - Quote And yet, you agreed with at least two of them. You do not have to agree with all of them and I never claimed I would successfully find all of them. The study moves forward. You can contribute or not as you wish. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 20:04:26 - [196] - Quote Cloaks are fine (Fozielaw). "It's not the cloak you are afraid of, it's the people coming after him" Well, yah. Or rather afraid of the potential that it could happen, and in particular the potential that it could happen in a way that makes the pilot caught look stupid. That is the "pretty big psychological effect" we are looking at " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 21:25:51 - [197] - Quote Teckos I am also not the one struggling with non-linear logic. You are. Hence your small army of pretty puny straw men. To rehash yet again. I am just looking at what wormhole mechanisms that reduce a pretty big psychological effect might look like in nullsec. I am not making an impact study beyond that stated objective. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 23:30:10 - [198] - Quote Anyway, moving back to topic: No more feedback on this? Wormhole space has system effects that impact significantly on doctrine and tactical efficiency. This allows residents of specific systems to fine tune doctrine, skills, and tactics optimally adapted to their specific ecosystem. Visitors to that system must either fight at a serious disadvantage, or enter with a high degree of planned premeditation. Giving sov holders access to infrastructure modules that allows them to tailor combat environments in systems they control duplicates that effect and could be combined with expanding wormhole star effects to more types of stars (in weaker or different incarnations). Implicit threat is reduced by giving visitors the option of either fighting at a disadvantage, or by preparing sufficiently. In effect reducing the level of opportunistic predation a PvE player need worry about." Addendum This of course has everything to do with afk cloaky camping as the "big psychological effect" derived from it, and we are looking at things in wormhole space that can decrease the "big psychological effect" caused by afk cloaky camping if mirrored in nullsec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.14 23:35:31 - [199] - Quote You are incidentally doing nullsec wrong if you are ratting or mining at peak times. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 01:29:03 - [200] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: So, I take it there are no objections then? Onward to point 4. I'll rehash it plain and simple this time, so that your feeble minds can grasp the basic concepts contained within: to counter the implicit threat aka the "big psychological impact" of the game, it is important to realise it's not about you. Despite being an invested stakeholder I want to point out it's still not about me either. Because Fozzie. Thank you for your constructive input. Onward to point 5! Why does Brokk sound like Jerghul... Yah, that about catches the flavour of the sentiment behind my posts Only the first sentence is wrong. I don't give a rats ass if people have objections or not. I just want to see what they are. I did think we had consensus at one point. My bad, I forgot most EvE spaceships are equipped with back pedals for frantic use. Consensus or agreement are not required. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 01:35:05 - [201] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Unfortunately, something interesting Mike said got lost amidst the clutter... I was hoping the Sov null guys could enlighten me about this: apparently, defense fleets are a long way from where the ratting happens. This is not the case where we live; but then again, we're small so we only occupy 3-5 systems. I was wondering ... is it possible in these instances where there's a no-man's land between the PvP-wing (chokepoints, pipelines) and the ratting fleet exists, ... is it possible this alliance is in fact trying to hold on to more space than its memberbase can support? Or, in other words, is it common in nullsec to take up so much space your guys can't even reach you in time if/when sh!t hits the fan? Seems a bit odd; though I wouldn't want to dismiss it off hand because on roams I have seen plenty of free space so I suppose it is possible he's spot on there. Anyone care to enlighten me? Thanks Where I live we donGÇÖt do defensive fleets. We do a standing fleet. The idea being that with everyone in one fleet if the **** hits the fan the other guys will come help you out. Of course, if it is a 10 man gang you are screwed, but typically it is 1-2 guys in a stratii or the like. But you have to be in the fleet and on comms so you can yell for help. We have 14 systems of which about 8 or 9 are good for ratting. So most people are GÇ£pretty closeGÇ¥. Our coalition has a pretty good intel channel as well. Not unusual to see 300 or more online in late USTZ. So, you have to be more AFK than semi-AFK to get caught completely unawares. This is another fundamental disconnect... You have to be afk to be caught unawares... Meaning that you should not be caught out in a non-combat ship when the neighbors come visiting? Because that's what's being complained about. We put away the soft targets when they are under direct threat. Either it's ok that we do that, or it's not. In fact, it would be integral to defending your space. It's like cleaning up the kitchen so you don't get ants. If it's both ok, and expected....nigh unto required by those interested in actually defending space... How then does it cecome reasonable that there be no counter to having a cloaked hostile roaming your space and forcing that defensive response? Move over? That's abandoning the space. Fleet? Sure, but it's not always an option and we are speaking of an enduring situation where one ship threatens you from unbreakable safety at all times. Fly stupid- Its ok to hunt me but not for me to hunt thee? The counter most used is trying to burn space to the ground in as wide an enclave as you can project. Its not about holding space, its about denying it to anyone else because they could potentially stage cyno attacks from space. Its not about wanting what people have. Its wanting them out. Either you join the alliance, or you leave. No middle ground for neutral parties. This counter will of course become quite effective with the new citadelles. There will really be nice things to burn to cordon off space. Because big psychological effect can be cleansed with fire. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 05:59:34 - [202] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: I like how you edit around the salient points... Move over a system is the same thing as abandoning the space. Camper wins by default as he cannot be challenged and the locals can't use the space. Compromised fits. Camper wins by default since he cannot be challenged, only tolerated. How about the option to actually, you know.... Contest him for the space. Put him at risk. Share out the non-consent? What holy decree makes him worthy of winning by default from his unassailable 100% safe vantage? Why should I be forced to lose, or lose more without ever having a chance to actually confront him and win? It's not about effort, or risk, or even the reward. It's about one side being able to affect the other in a negative fashion from 100% safety. You will be able to confront him and win big time. The Citadelle change is wonderful in that sense. Stations turn into stationary spaceships once a week that can be blown up. The main character of the player controlling the afk cloaky alt invariably lives within striking distance. Just hit his home and destroy it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 06:27:13 - [203] - Quote Mike Its up to you to deal with it because EvE game mechanics are completely static and never change. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 06:44:01 - [204] - Quote The point made for null-sec is that the best response to afk cloakers is simply to destroy the base their main is operating from. This is of course equally true of bases yolo yokels use. This is currently a bit difficult as outposts cannot actually be destroyed and POSs are a chore. But Citadelle will change all that. Everything becomes immobile ships that can be destroyed several hours per week. Oh the tears that will flow... This will be fun " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 08:21:41 - [205] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Oh yes... "my isk/hour!" Everyone should totally go to the place with the most risk for least return. There's an interesting supposition. Let's see if it syncs up with what actual nullbears are saying about nullbearing. Hmmm. Not... not so much. Quote: It's not about effort, or risk, or even the reward. It's about one side being able to affect the other in a negative fashion from 100% safety. But they're not affecting you in any way. You just up and soak your pampers at the the sight of a non-blue in local - they didn't actually do anything. Not affecting me in anyway? I am sorry... Are you assuming I should just ignore the hostile hunting me and take no action in response to his presence? Because that's what your statement implies. Unfortunately there is no option to actually confront him. He will wait until there is a lone target in system that is stupid enough to ignore his presence. He will know what resists to tank for, because he knows the local rats. He will know what damage to bring because he knows the local rats. He will know he is facing an active tank, and roughly the amount of buffer because he can see how effectively I deal with the local rats. He has every advantage, and makes a perfect assessment of his risk in attacking, or he simply does not attack. His effort is minimal, and taking a nap is actually advantageous and serves to increase his safety. There is target selection and stealth gameplay, and then there is the current state of affairs which pushes stealth into 100% safety while still projecting threat to force defensive actions to the detriment of his prey. That does not happen in wormholes for several reasons. It's a comparison of Apple's and Orangutans. It's not balanced. Here is the first poster who had a clue in that link. He seemed mighty aligned with Mike. (mining revenue is going to be swell when people start building citadelles). Captain Krunch Krunch wrote: Honestly, i know the OP is just doing the math and not actually out there every day mining in null and pulling in those numbers. I have mined all over Eve, and i will be damned if a freaking nuet or enough rats don't get me to dock up. Im talking about deep space null as well, where it takes several minutes with 5 T2 drones in my barge fighting off 3 or more rats. Sure i have made some isk vs time while mining in null, but like others have said, there is risk involved, not to mention shipping costs unless your building on site. Either way, all it takes is a swarm to come thru, and before you know it you have to move your whole operation and start all over. Additionally, if your able to stay on grid long enough to fill your cargo with Spod or any other ABC ore it would be possible. Lets do your math divided by 3 since i only run one account. 70 mill / 3 = 23.3 mill per hr, per toon, which also breaks down to 11.66666 mill per half hour. I suppose that makes sense, and i can hit about 80% of that in high sec with orca support mining Veld/Scordite in a T2 barge with pretty good skills. Oh and there is a crap ton of buyers who dont mind traveling to pick it up from you. So if you could stay on grid consistently or up to 5 hrs a day, which is like a second job, i could see you pulling in about a billion isk that way. But i have rarely seen or lived in what was supposed to be a dead end, or "quiet" area and been left alone to mine juicy rocks all freaking day without some Neut coming in forcing me to dock up and play the waiting game. But i dont think there is much difference between what your doing and what most others in high sec are doing. You are getting nearly the same results, and your locked into mining so much in order to pay for your other accounts. I agree that mining in null can be safer than high sec, but your constantly watching local, checking d-scan, and putting all your goods into a station that can be taken by the end of a week. Oh, did i mention the cloaky camper, you know, the A-hole who sits in your mining system every day, so guess what, time to clone jump to mining base #2, aka high sec..... Geesh,,,,, Whatever. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 19:11:40 - [206] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: A medium citadel uses substantially less than a single battleship's worth of minerals. The PI folks will be making bank (already are, in fact). Miners... well, even Eve needs ditch diggers. My god...the stupid dishonesty. But we knew that already. Your arguments are stupid, dishonest or both: "Yes. Not affecting you in any way. They're not tackling you, shooting you, or otherwise doing anything but upsetting your feefees" Oh giggle. If you want to look at citadelles as a mineral sink, then why not look at the large and extra large (10x and 100x the minerals of a medium)? Nullsec miners generally also do PI btw. You've been to nullsec, right? Anyway, the player controlled fix to afk cloaks is to burn all non-allied null sec bases to the ground that can be burned to the ground. It also deals with the yolo yokels, so all is good (though a bit out of step with the ideas behind sov). Denying space is a two way street. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 20:37:49 - [207] - Quote Monkey How do I know there are force projection limitations in Eve? Oh giggle. Right now, the best method for clearing out yolo yokels and afk campers is to capture outposts, then hand the outposts off to corps in an alliance who want or need a bit of sov space. Essentially extending a buffer zone around any defined core. The poses are cleared up afterwards to meet industrial needs mainly. Usually after they have run out of fuel and off-lined. Now of course, this does nothing to the cloaky camper already in your system. But he is not the problem. The problem always was the ships that could potentially follow him. The further away from a staging base the afk camper is, the more irrelevant he becomes (or more correctly, he moves somewhere else to gain greater relevance). Citadelles allow for fighting fire with fire. Space denial being a two way street. Here you can simply burn staging bases to the ground in what would amount to rather short campaigns (we dont know exactly how short yet). So you create a zone where your alliance holds sov, and a belt of scorched space around that zone where you destroy budding citadelles in nice roams (it will be roams because corps tend to set timers on all things to the same peak time. So you can hit as many citadelles as they hold - spending 30 minutes on each a total of 3 times with two invulnerability periods). I've known this for a while of course. Hence my training up attack battlecruiser relevant skills. No reason to use more than required dps after all, is there? Oh the tears that will flow, and the whining that will ensue...because suddenly denial of space will become "broken" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 21:10:18 - [208] - Quote Any more empty (space)suit comments you would like to share with us? Geeze, you may be right when you suggest some EvE players might be broken. But cut down on the PvE player projection buddy and look inwards to find...well...what substance do your arguments and thoughts have? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 21:57:25 - [209] - Quote Monkey I am not waiting with baited breath for substantive arguments from you. It would be a silly expectation. This thread has the exact function I want it to. I have a feeling I will be quoting from it with quite some glee over the course of spring " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.15 22:55:28 - [210] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: So long as tackle remains an absolute mechanic then allowing a ship on grid with a soft target is suicide. I don't fly suicidal, and anyone that does deserves the loss mail. This is the first thing you said that I agree with. Flying ships that are soft targets has no place without the protection of friends in fleet outside of highsec, and certain carefully picked LS/WH systems. Working as intended. Its not really working if that is your goal. There are lots of places in null sec where soft targets can operate with impunity. Which is part of the issue I suppose. There are not really that many null sec systems where afk cloaks can have meaningful backup. So they stack into systems where they do....and think the downtime that causes PvE players there is meaningful in the grand scheme of things. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 07:47:22 - [211] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: A medium citadel uses substantially less than a single battleship's worth of minerals. The PI folks will be making bank (already are, in fact). Miners... well, even Eve needs ditch diggers. My god...the stupid dishonesty. But we knew that already. Your arguments are stupid, dishonest or both: "Yes. Not affecting you in any way. They're not tackling you, shooting you, or otherwise doing anything but upsetting your feefees" Oh giggle. Mineral requirement for a Hyperion (unresearched) Tritanium: 13,903,019 Pyerite: 3,476,122 Mexallon: 835,877 Isogen: 217,029 Nocxium: 54,292 Zydrine: 13,349 Megacyte: 3,457 Mineral requirements for a medium citadel: Tritanium: 7,500,000 Pyerite: 1,500,000 Mexallon: 525,000 Isogen: 60,000 Nocxium: 11,250 Zydrine: 5,250 Megacyte: 2,250 Hmmm, yep SurrenderMonkey is right. Edit: Even researched the hyperion will use more minerals. And what is the mineral requirements for an extra large one oh man with the stupidly dishonest arguments? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 10:09:48 - [212] - Quote Morrigan Stop with the dimwitted arguments. How can they possibly be pertinent to the topic at hand. Also, your issue is with Monkey. He brought up the cost of citadelles. To rehash again. In null-sec, the counter to denial of practical access to space is of course denial of practical access to space. Campers are removed by removing access to bases their support might come from. Currently, you need to take sov on the perimeter, then hand sov off to some ally that wants it. With citadell, you destroy the bases. It will be great fun...and suddenly access denial will become broken and tears will flow. I rather suspect your tears in particular will roll. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 10:19:20 - [213] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: FC WHAT IS NPC NULL SPACE? FC WHAT IS A MIDPOINT? Sweet jesus man, do you even eve? Who gives a crap about NPC null sec? Talk about carebear pvp. "Waah, we need more NPC stations so the meanies cant take them from us [and with citadelle] or blow them up" Geeze. Mechanisms that provide safety are for the weak and puny. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 10:26:31 - [214] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I assume based on that reply you do not Eve. But I guess we did kind of know that. Protip: Major dockable assets tend to be staged in NPC space for obvious reasons. Which again paints you the fool and dismisses your citadel claptrap from the discussion. Why do you think Moa stages where they do? And who gives a crap about major dockable assets (though yah, no one in eve is so risk adverse as the owner of capital+ ships. See the tears that flowed when they could be hotdropped easily)? Its the same old same old. "Waaah, my playing style should be immune from danger" Man up and accept assets can be lost. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 10:35:24 - [215] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Can you even keep on the same track for more than 5 minutes? "Ohhhh citadels will be balanced because we can burn it all to the ground! HAH!" >No-one will use them for drop staging "And who gives a crap about major dockable assets" If you perform u-turns any faster your head might come clean off with the whiplash. The problem my friend with the dim witted arguments is not that PvE pilots are worried that the afk camper is going to cyno in supers. It never was. Server goes off-line in 30 minutes and I just finished sweeping up a few frost sites in my constellation. And yah, there were afk cloaks. But who cares? The nearest base their support could stage from is a long way off. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 10:48:16 - [216] - Quote It is on topic (and I am surprised you do not recognize hyperbole. You use it often enough). In sov space, the response to access denial by way of cloaky camping is access denial to cloaky backup by grabbing sov on the perimeter and handing it off to allies who want it. With Citadelle, the response will be to burn citadelles to the ground without the chore of taking sov. The worry was never "major dockable assets" (you may want to check up what can dock at xl citadelles btw). The worry related to afk cloaky camping is small gangs of yolo yokels taking advantage of a ship dropping cloak and holding tackle for a few seconds. That is the "pretty big psychological effect" Fozie is speaking of. By low sec dwellers, are you speaking of the 0,0001% of EvE players that habitually mine and rat in low sec (excluding fraction and intrusion stuff but of course)? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 12:00:37 - [217] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Again, where do you think these people stage from? There are substantially more in lowsec than you think, but (sigh) you'd know this if you knew anything about this topic in the wild. "By low sec dwellers, are you speaking of the 0,0001% of EvE players that habitually mine and rat in low sec (excluding fraction and intrusion stuff but of course)?" Did you feel I was off by an order of magnitude? The yolo yokels that give afk cloaky camping a meaning are not staging from any npc stations in within reach of my part of 0-sec. Nor are they staging from player owned outposts within reach of me. The only thing that changes with Citadelle is it will be fun to destroy player owned assets instead of the chore it is to subvert sov that is not wanted for keeping. Its simple friend. Access denial to the use of space is countered by access denial to the use of space. The only ones that gain are renters. When systems are not at a premium, then the cost of lease should fall. They are after all nice to have as buffer-fillers and afk cloaky magnets (cloaky campers tend to hang out where yolo yokels can support them [though it really is the other way around. the afk cloaks are invariably alts acting in support of whatever the main wants done]). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 15:47:26 - [218] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: Jerghul wrote: Campers are removed by removing access to bases their support might come from. Currently, you need to take sov on the perimeter, then hand sov off to some ally that wants it. This is wrong. You don't need local bases to attack null. I have a character that hasn't docked in a station since August, and he's been in null a lot. Have you ever actually attacked people in null when you didn't live there? I'm guessing not. If you meant you solo with a cloak capable ship, then good for you. If you meant I should worry about yolo yokels making 15 jumps to back up an attack on a target of opportunity the afk cloak has found, then forget it. Low probability events of that type are not worth anyone's concern. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 20:14:08 - [219] - Quote Teckos Yah, that happens. 0.0001% of pvp times. I could be off by an order of magnitude either way. We all know yolo yokels wanting pvp from some lucky opportunity their alt cloaky has caught in some peak yokel time will do so within relatively few jumps from the station or base they operate from. So they hit systems at the perimeter, not the core (note that it is not quite linear. Yolo yokels will follow pipes for a bit further. Its linear see, so they don't get lost. The elaborate travel fit to combat fit with staying power for a while is another one of those extreme outlier events that really are nothing to worry about. Its like I said before. No PvE'er minds losing a ship to someone who has put work into. Its the yolo yokels that cause embarrassment. So if you go all travelfit-combatfit, staying power with spare parts. Then good for you. Denying access to space works as a counter to denial of space. Right now its a chore to nab sov you dont want. With Citadelle it will be fun to blow up stuff you dont want there. And then the tears will flow and suddenly access denial will be broken. Because thats how yolo yokels roll. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 20:43:26 - [220] - Quote Nothing about "priced in" changes what I said about PvE rewards increasing. Which reminds me...I should put in some buy orders for better frostline drops (its not the isk maker tiercide is, but some of the drops are nice buy opportunities). Sure 0.0001% of pvp events occur exactly as you describe. Give or take an order of magnitude. All you are showing is that you do not understand the "pretty big psychological effect" Fozie was speaking of. Extreme low probability events are nothing to worry about. The way you make them low probability events is to create a context where a lot of effort is required to bring effective unsolicited pvp to your system. The way you do that is by denying space to yolo yokels in as wide an area of space you can. They will almost inevitably just hang out in the fringes doing their uber leet reddit ripoffs. Which means the chore of going of taking sov you do not want today, and the fun destroying citadelles you dont want there tomorrow. Tears will flow and access denial will suddenly be broken " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 21:23:48 - [221] - Quote You did not understand what implicit threat meant. So I learned from Fozie and simplified: "pretty big psychological effect" Still too many syllables for the argument to compute properly for you? That you do not recognize mechanics and play-styles does not mean they do not exist. It just means you are oblivious to them. Eve can be played at many levels. Understanding is not required. That is why God invented the F1 button. Yolo yokels...uhm, I could try to translate that to stupid if you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 21:35:02 - [222] - Quote I made a big point about you dishonest argument. If you want to show how cheap things are in battleships, then compare with citadels that need an order of magnitude more minerals. Large is the mean. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 21:51:33 - [223] - Quote Spot on except off by an order of magnitude. I get that large numbers are abstract, but geeze... I also think you are underestimating what is going to happen. Citadel give PvE players something to use their minerals on and opens the door to Farmville online for those who choose that playing style. It wont be more that 70% of EvE community. Tops. Feel free to add me to your watchlist if you want to see when I am online. Assuming you play EvE of course. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 22:15:38 - [224] - Quote Its like someone saying something only costs a dollar, when actually the mid range unit on sale costs 10. Snake oil salesman line way of arguing that. Hence dishonest. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 22:30:46 - [225] - Quote A large citadel costs 10 times more, an xlarge 100 times more. His basis for comparison was blatantly dishonest. If I had done the same, you would be all over me claiming I did not know large and xlarge citadels existed or some crap move like that. Its pretty dishonest of you to cast yourself in a neutral arbitrator stance now that you mention it Teckos. But way to be off topic. Citadels buff PvE players. Who now get to play more farmville online. Yay. Lets leave it at that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 22:37:00 - [226] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Oh and the citadels are going to be harder to kill and will take longer to remove them as well, so there goes that theory as well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshkO8HqQ10 " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 23:11:56 - [227] - Quote It will be fun because it causes tears (the lock down on stuff alone...and then the fine:D). it beats flopping sov you dont want by a mile. it takes 30 minutes per citadelle before invuln. (3-4 on a alliance roam if the timer is set the way they are usually set) It pushes yolo yokels and their attendant afk cloaky campers out towards the fringe. Or, you meet access denial with access denial. Your idea of a fix will be to try and make citadel bashing boring of course. Because you will win EvE if you can just make it boring enough. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 06:30:08 - [228] - Quote Mags Hard to take your level of argumentative dishonesty seriously. Is it a membership criteria to that wan...sorry, mutual appreciation club you are part of? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 07:00:23 - [229] - Quote No need. Your wan... mutual appreciation club MO is pretty clear. Its like you have a check list of troll and flame techniques you apply to anything outside your echo chamber. Something you ripped off reddit I imagine. No, its not about me. I see how you treat anyone who has a perspective outside the sound bites of that party line. With me its all just good fun, friend. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 08:53:30 - [230] - Quote What Mike is actually doing is looking at a game mechanic that has an unreasonable effect and suggest that it be changed. It is of course true that under the current regime, he has the choices that Teckos outlines. But we all know game mechanics are fluid things subject to change through dev intervention, or through compensating ingame techniques. Mike We have an engagement every 6 days in a core null sec system (and a PvE pilot loss twice a month). You might be able to compensate by thinking along the lines I indicated (find a nice alliance centre surrounded by a nice buffer zone and do some diplo to move there). Until Fozie and the crew make the changes they would like to make. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 13:02:06 - [231] - Quote Karous Does my killboard show a lot of uncertainty challenging my game play? What I am primarily interested in seeing is a reduction in yolo yokels (small gang F1 village idiots) using 0 skill tactics ripped off from reddit. I'm fine with kills that require determination, skill and solid premeditation. The kind that takes the target seriously. But we know change is coming and that the changes will give me what I want in a more entertaining way than how it is achieved today. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 13:35:42 - [232] - Quote Kaarous Players with determination, skill, and proper premeditation are good at generating unsolicited kills. I understand your unfamiliarity with that however. "Deleting local" is good. It enhances buffer strategies (dont even ask. You would not understand. Just stick to understanding EvE at your own pace). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 13:42:28 - [233] - Quote Yah, yokels tend to think that way. If you don't have to take your targets seriously, then all you are really saying it that EvE is broken because 0 skilz is enough. Also, a smart pvp player will do what he can to make sure his targets keep undocking. That would include treating them respectfully and make sure they know they "almost had him" and things like that. But you would not understand that either. No, dont ask. Play EvE in that special league you are in. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 14:46:59 - [234] - Quote Karous Yah, yokels tend to say that. "I am nothing but an F1 tool the EvE central bank uses to fight mineral price deflation". No, dont ask. You would not understand. Wander Yah, I do not doubt it does not sound like an EvE familiar to you. Like I said, the game can be understood at many levels. Carry on understanding it at your own pace. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 14:51:23 - [235] - Quote Mags Or he could air his case here with a degree of trust that it will be addressed. The hotdropping super nerf taught us that if nothing else. Most players are PvE players, not players that rely on afk cloaker campers to tickle their gonads. The crowd must have its day. Aww....did I hurt your feelings? Your last post comes across that way, friend " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 15:31:26 - [236] - Quote " For that you need a structure." And soon, only select structures will give you that. Cloaky immunity is a bit out of step with development trends. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 15:55:50 - [237] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: people who have played less than a year understand the game like I do I fixed your post for you. Like I said, EvE can be understood and played at many levels. You seem content with yours. Good for you! " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 17:21:50 - [238] - Quote Yes, Wander, I can completely imagine you think I have proven your point. Teckos Even you have 7 PvE characters to 1 PvP. You may define yourself as a PvPer, (after all, anyone can self-define anyway they like), but how does your time spent actually break down? Its not an important point (developers have the data after all). If I am wrong, I am wrong. Did you catch the o7 episode? The frost team lead was pretty clear on it being a pvp-pve integration tryout. Re earlier discussion points. Not sure what the ratting meta is now. But devs will shave the ishtar or buff something else until it is no longer that (the med rail reduction hurt). Rats...well...it does put more emphasis on timing (they come in waves and waves end), but is hardly a gamebreaker (though I get it when combined with ratting ishtars...). ...But ratting ishtars goes to what I was saying about omni damage. If the optimal fit is also a pvp ready fit, then a lot of the complaints regarding cloaks vanish...or at least become unreasonable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 19:04:09 - [239] - Quote Teckos That last post shows really clearly you do not understand implic..."pretty big psychological effect". Instead of having to worry only when there is someone in system, you get to worry all the time. Hell, you could be the only person logged on EvE and you would still have to worry. It will also make it seem like EvE is dead unless you put more effort into it than most people do. Which is probably the main reason against touching local outside of the tiny niche we know as wormhole space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 19:06:37 - [240] - Quote "I want to develop a MMOG. I know, I will introduce things on a broad scale that makes it look like no one is playing the game" Sounds like a plan " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 19:29:02 - [241] - Quote Teckos Thats the solution. Instead of permanently visible cues of EvE vitality, we will make it only awkwardly available on occasion. I am sure the Devs are going to run with that one. Heh, the echo chamber really has you believing the craziest stuff. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 19:43:13 - [242] - Quote I was speaking purely from a marketing perspective. The power of interdisciplinary teams. Some poor sod is probably forced to read the manure we have been producing here even. But there is no way the marketing guy/gal on the team is going to let the removing local impact slip through the cracks. Removing local underlines the general sentiment that the number of EvE players is decreasing. That sentiment has to change first for local removal to be even imaginably possible. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 20:13:34 - [243] - Quote Context is king. You had already read the posts presenting why no local is the world's stupidest marketing idea. Having the attention span of a gold fish is dishonest, stupid, pick your own adjective? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.17 21:12:47 - [244] - Quote Well, that would follow from having the attention span of a guppy. Local makes Eve seem alive Developers do not want Eve to seem dead Therefore, local stays. Succinct* enough for you to grasp in whatever seconds are available? * Characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse (websters) " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 02:14:23 - [245] - Quote Teckos You want me to care what you think I should think you think about me? Crimea River. Review the previous posts (click on my profile) and see that I brought up the point a few posts earlier Reminds self not to mistake stupidity for malice Monkey wh space is as lively as Inuvik on a Tuesday evening in November. I don't even want to guess at what tiny fraction of EvE pilots operate there. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 03:53:22 - [246] - Quote Karous He is dealing with it by making a relevant argument that gives developers more meat on the bone when they look at the implic..."pretty big psychological effect" Embrace change and harden up a bit my friend. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:04:14 - [247] - Quote Kaarous What Mike is asking for does not decrease his risk at all unless you are thinking that cloaky campers will run away like little mice (I am alluding to something like rats except smaller and less significant) as soon as the tiniest element of risk to them is introduced. Community involvement is a desirable part of EvE, just as providing relevant feedback helps the development process. Its just something you need to learn to live with in the CCP universe (though not all game companies are as community orientated, so there are always games you can play where player views are completely ignored. EvE just happens to not be one of them). It does seem obvious someone needs to harden up, and it aint Mike . " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:21:52 - [248] - Quote I added an edit to my above post. Implic..."pretty big psychological effect" remains if cloaky campers remain. You are arguing that cloaky campers with run away like little things that run away a lot if even the slightest risk to them is introduced. Mike is betting that cloaky campers are indeed very like little things that run away a lot in the face of even tiny risk. Which I guess tells you everything you need to know about the level of regard he holds for yolo yokels. Ouch, Mike burned you good with that line of reasoning. If you pull your cloaky camper because of some slight risk, then you are removing pvp interaction, not Mike or any mechanisms that might be introduced. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:23:20 - [249] - Quote Monkey I traded it in for easier words. To, you know, help you guys understand. Instead of implicit risk, I now type out implic..."pretty big psychological effect". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:24:47 - [250] - Quote No need to project. You are doing a very good rendition of a stereotypical extreme risk adverse EvE player. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:27:25 - [251] - Quote Implicit threat is now = implic...."pretty big psychological effect" Teckos I don't know how to dumb it down even more for you. So I think you will just have to try and understand what it means. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:37:17 - [252] - Quote Monkey Bad, good, who cares? The post was very clear on Devs wanting to look into implic..."pretty big psychological effect" and mitigate it somewhat. The echo chamber took it to mean "remove local - yay" Which of course I have shown does nothing to lessen impli..."pretty big psychological effect", it just transfers it to a different vehicle and makes it a lot worse. In addition to making EvE seem dead amounting to an uhm courageous marketing strategy I am pretty sure CCP will pass on (yay interdisciplinary teams that make sure things like that are considered). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 04:41:27 - [253] - Quote Oh, so you do not believe that quote means "they are going to remove local, yay". Funny, I wonder where that stupid rumour came from then. Edit I think I am convincing the people I want to convince. Or rather - I am raising the relevant bullet points the team needs to look at. Multi-disciplinary teams. Some poor sod actually has to read this dunghill of a thread before any change. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 05:10:52 - [254] - Quote Monkey God invented interns for a reason. Some poor sod will be going through this and making a nice bullet point list for some team meeting. Teckos They are not going to remove local in null-sec. Doing so is horrible marketing. At the very worst, there might be a mechanism that can toggle local (entosis links turning it on/off). That could work under assumption that populated systems will keep theirs on generally. Its still dangerous for as long as players keep yapping about EvE dying. Edit And you see? My value to quality assuring bullet points is proven. If indeed it is true that not a single player thought of issues relating to making EvE look dead (nullsec is assumed btw, unless someone specifically mentions a different part of space). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 05:35:33 - [255] - Quote Teckos It would be hard to overestimate the marketing value of local. How would a new player on a trial account in high sec ever figure out that scamming attempts are not entirely representative of the EvE community if high sec had wh style local? Not that we are thinking of highsec of course. Do you have any more self-quotes you would like to share with us until the other members of your wan...mutual appreciation club return for some huggles? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 15:52:01 - [256] - Quote On no local in null sec You know, the argument that central government no longer wants to support local is fine. Combined with central government no longer wanting to support jump gates. Why on earth would they not support free coms and nanite transponders (Big brother does see you and like to keep track of you as a public service), but be willing to pay to fuel jumpgates free of charge. It makes no sense. Mike You know, another fix would be to take advantage of the new grid and have huge asteroid fields. A cloaked pilot would have to be incredibly skilled to pick his way through the rocks without getting decloaked. Ratting modus could be the same, simply with tons of debris for same effect. Reintroducing mines (the minefield kind) would also work. But perhaps in the form of a small deployable citadel with various combat modules that can be deployed virtually anywhere and returned to the cargo bay when you are done mining or ratting. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 16:36:52 - [257] - Quote What was the logic behind removing local anyway? It must be more than just wanting another crutch because cloaky campers just aint enough. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 17:12:11 - [258] - Quote I am going to summarize quickly before I go and, you know, play EvE. For null-sec 1. AFK cloaky campers are not a peak-time problem. In peak times, null-sec players are either doing pvp stuff, or they have backup to protect their PVE activity. 2. PVE activity is generally geared towards PVP. Either individual players isk tanking to buy their pvp ships, or industrialist fueling the SRP machine. 3. AFK cloaks tend to target outside their timezone when the intent is to engage. Same timezone targeting is not good due to overlapping peak times and point 1. 4. The only argument with merit in regards to "pretty big psychological effect" relates to access denial being inherently deflationary. It gives less raw materials and less isk. 5. The other arguments fail when applying the principle of reciprocity. Anything said that about PvE players is either equally true of cloaky campers, or more true for cloaky campers. 6. No local aggravates the "pretty big psychological effect" by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk cloaky campers are. It is by no measure a fix. 7. No local in null sec makes no sense. If central government can afford to sponsor gates, then of course it will also sponsor local and pilot ID services. Whatever change is done to local must also be done to gates for the change to be coherent. Now off to pilot the ship. I will be back on the soapbox later. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 21:41:08 - [259] - Quote 8. Removal of local is also a hideously poor marketing idea that would re-enforce any player perception that EvE is dying by masking the number of players online in a system. 9. Players truly concerned about isk/hour revenue would look at PvE activity like PI and in particular moon harvesting as much more appropriate than relatively vulnerable ratters and miners. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 22:18:34 - [260] - Quote 10. Players have adapted to "pretty big psychological effect" by creating buffer zones around core sov by denying afk cloak support access to bases within practical reach of important PvE systems. The mechanism is sov expansion, but handing off sov to renters or other allies. The net effect is alliances holding more systems than they can possibly exploit effectively, with combat activity derived from afk cloaky camping mainly taking place in fringe buffer areas. Citadelle will almost certainly see players revert from taking undesirable sov to a scorched earth policy of destroying citadels to deny bases for cloaky camping backup to stage from. The effect of both measures is responding to denial of space with denial of space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 22:21:52 - [261] - Quote Mags Removing null sec local is only a thing in the minds of the fevered echo chamber. Its a really stupid idea that can only be coherently introduced by giving jump gates the same form of limitation null sec local gets. So at the very worst entosis toggles turning both local and jump gates on-off. Concord's pilot ID service is actually quite useful at many levels. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 22:49:10 - [262] - Quote You can easily check how dangerous moon harvesting is. Go to zkill, look at blockade runners caught with moongoo in cargo, multiply by two. There is a greater chance of dying from papercut bleedouts in Jiita. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 22:53:51 - [263] - Quote Unified For null-sec 1. AFK cloaky campers are not a peak-time problem. In peak times, null-sec players are either doing pvp stuff, or they have backup to protect their PVE activity. 2. PVE activity is generally geared towards PVP. Either individual players isk tanking to buy their pvp ships, or industrialist fueling the SRP machine. 3. AFK cloaks tend to target outside their timezone when the intent is to engage. Same timezone targeting is not good due to overlapping peak times and point 1. 4. The only argument with merit in regards to "pretty big psychological effect" relates to access denial being inherently deflationary. It gives less raw materials and less isk. 5. The other arguments fail when applying the principle of reciprocity. Anything said that about PvE players is either equally true of cloaky campers, or more true for cloaky campers. 6. No local aggravates the "pretty big psychological effect" by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk cloaky campers are. It is by no measure a fix. 7. No local in null sec makes no sense. If central government can afford to sponsor gates, then of course it will also sponsor local and pilot ID services. Whatever change is done to local must also be done to gates for the change to be coherent. 8. Removal of local is also a hideously poor marketing idea that would re-enforce any player perception that EvE is dying by masking the number of players online in a system. 9. Players truly concerned about isk/hour revenue would look at PvE activity like PI and in particular moon harvesting as much more appropriate than relatively vulnerable ratters and miners. 10. Players have adapted to "pretty big psychological effect" by creating buffer zones around core sov by denying afk cloak support access to bases within practical reach of important PvE systems. The mechanism is sov expansion, but handing off sov to renters or other allies. The net effect is alliances holding more systems than they can possibly exploit effectively, with combat activity derived from afk cloaky camping mainly taking place in fringe buffer areas. Citadelle will almost certainly see players revert from taking undesirable sov to a scorched earth policy of destroying citadels to deny bases for cloaky camping backup to stage from. The effect of both measures is responding to denial of space with denial of space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 23:01:06 - [264] - Quote Uncontested POS bashing to secure moon resources is PvE buddy. The only risk of unsolicited pvp is for blockade runners. And that risk rounds down to 0. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 23:11:19 - [265] - Quote Their choice to solicit pvp, but almost inevitably not. Fleet battles tend to not occur by POSs. A lot of null sec PvE elements are potentially not 0-sum. Frontline missions have been designed to encourage pvp, entosis links are designed to goad players into pvp, POS bashing is just another one of those things. I get that you do not understand the points I am making btw. EvE can be understood at many levels after all. Feel free to continue to understand EvE at your own level and at your own pace. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.18 23:23:09 - [266] - Quote Because if you see a black bird, it proves all birds are black? What do they teach in school these days... " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 00:06:56 - [267] - Quote Mags "Santa" At least you are consistent. You believe in many an outlandish, childish thing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 00:54:03 - [268] - Quote Teckos "disrupting ship intelligence" based on service modules Even if you took that to mean shutting down local (it more likely means disrupting dscan), you would still have to have service modules in the system to shut down local. Which is no mean feat if the system belongs to someone else. Local can only be coherently replaced with the same mechanism that replaces nullsec jump gates. You do the math " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 01:09:48 - [269] - Quote No one is as risk averse as an afk cloaky camper, yet they seem to enjoy null-sec fine. Its about inertia, not risk aversion. Its a hassle to move and a hassle to move back if things don't work out with the corp that invited you to nullsec. The default is keeping local btw. You have to think of good reasons for why Concord would suddenly decide to stop their pilot ID services, but continue to operate jump gates in null-sec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 13:28:13 - [270] - Quote Brokk You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system. Karous I spend most of my flying time in cloaked ships. You can easily see that on zboards from the way I almost never die. It also follows I have no personal problem with being called risk averse. It is true for the most part. Not always of course. I will pvp when my alliance needs to bulk up pilots for certain things (I pvp'd all the time when we were on the losing side of a coalition war a long time back. Pilots were direly needed all the time then). Wander No reason to remove local except for "lore" as you call a game function that exists everywhere except in wormhole space. So why exactly is it that you want Concord to end the Pilot ID Service (PIDS) it provides everywhere there are gates? It would make "pretty big psychological effect" much worse by giving it a much more effective vehicle than afk campy cloaking in a way that makes EvE seem dead to casual player inspection are not good balancing reasons for change. So it cannot be a balancing solution you want. So it has to be "lore". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 14:00:23 - [271] - Quote That is not balancing from an "pretty big psychological effect" perspective. Its an extreme escalation of the issue. (its like negotiating with 3 year-olds. No, you cannot have a piece of chocolate. Waah, I will only accept that if I can eat as much toffee as I want) Balance is along the lines Mike suggests; Actively flown cloaked ships remain immune to unsolicited pvp. Only afk cloaks become potentially vulnerable after triggers demanding active player efforts are reached. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 14:16:30 - [272] - Quote Why? Actively piloted cloaky ships are not impacted at all by mechanisms of the type suggested. So no need to buff ships with you know, a pilot at his computer flying it. Edit Afk ratters are of course as vulnerable as ever to you know, cloaky ships with active pilots. The only thing afk cloaky campers do more effectively than active cloaked ships is keep ratting and mining vessels from undocking. Its basically just a deflationary mechanism. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 15:22:55 - [273] - Quote Mags If you add a dollar to your wishes you could buy some bubblegum. Brokk So a flycatcher catches an afk camper in transit. So what? in an hour the flycatcher is somewhere else. Too system transit is not much of a risk, and once there you can remain forever. Way to not understand why afk cloaky campers cause issues. Mags 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. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 15:29:28 - [274] - Quote One dead venture moron. And a few hours later no dead venture as it passes through to afk cloaky camp until hell freezes over. Yay to you to for not understanding afk cloaky camping at all. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 15:50:31 - [275] - Quote Its always been that argument Brokk. Not only is afk cloaky camping a totally riskless, brainless, and contentless eve feature, it can also be done in an almost free and sp-less way. The risk of being caught in transit is close to 0 and after that "hurdle" is overcome, then afk cloaky camping can be sustained forever. You don't know what is afk cloaky camping. It could be venture, it could be a covert ops battleship. Anything causes the "pretty big psychological effect" that you are amazing good at consistently not understanding. But again, do not try to understand things that are beyond you. We would not want the strain to cause you to hurt yourself after all...and Eve can be played at any level, so understanding is not required of you anyway. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 16:14:31 - [276] - Quote So much for completely not understanding "pretty big psychological impact" that stems from afk cloaky camping. Do you not tire of QEDing the crap out of your failure to understand? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 17:54:56 - [277] - Quote Teckos Fail @grasping "pretty big psychological effect" derived from afk cloaky camping. Failure at that scale pretty much invalidates any vestige of value your opinion on this topic has. So let me help you. Viewing afk cloaky camping as a deflationary tool is the only argument for that has any merit. You may want to right that down (or tattoo it on the back of your hand) so you can remember it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.19 21:05:54 - [278] - Quote Brokk You cannot discuss the issue because you systematically fail to understand what an implicit threat...sorry...what a "pretty big psychological effect is. Transit is not related to the issues that occur once a afk cloaky camper is established in a system. It does not matter if the afk cloaker is in a venture or a covert ops battleship in terms of the implicit threat it represents (see above for how implicit threat is spelled in stupid). On the array point. It should be pretty clear by now that infrastructure is transitioning towards modules. Whatever is coming will be a module used in a citadel high, medium, or low slot. That should tell you a lot about what will be introduced. Perhaps something as simple as a powerful probelauncher with powerful probes able to scan down ships and create warp to points. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 02:40:47 - [279] - Quote Brokk It would be a mistake to give the game afk citadel combat capability. A mistake the developers look keen on not making. So if we take super probes in isolation. 1. Red in system 2. Some player with corp permission takes control of citadel 3. Spends some effort scanning down cloaked (or other) ship with clearly identifiable probes 4. Cloaked (or other) ship either warps away to restart scanning process. 5. Or remains in place and can be warped to (by ships, not by citadel). 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? 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. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 04:36:45 - [280] - Quote 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. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 05:40:48 - [281] - Quote 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. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 07:16:35 - [282] - Quote 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. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 07:48:45 - [283] - Quote 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. You deal with afk cloaky campers by putting a buffer zone between core systems where you PvE, and places where the yolo yokel cloaky camper back up can stage from. It makes things difficult for them and yolo yokels dont do difficult, so cloaky campers will target buffer systems for easy yolo yokel access. 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? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 07:57:07 - [284] - Quote I added an edit to the above post. Don't hurt yourself on the way out. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 15:48:55 - [285] - Quote Karous is actually supporting that he should be able to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack. That is not even valid for players in high sec Its insane unless he is playing Hello Kitty. Which may suit his temperament better come to think of it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 15:50:24 - [286] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: spell it out. Nope. I'm not abiding by your definitions, your self serving demands, your false dichotomies, or anything of the sort. At this point, after so many pages of your puerile whining, I am content to let you wallow in your own ignorance and laugh at your inability to play this game properly. And the best part is that it would be easy to fix, but for your terrible, entitled attitude that demands isk/hr as some kind of right. Plenty of people operate normally every day under conditions you have deemed impossible and "unreasonable", but you can't manage. Well, you can't manage because you're bad, and not one thing about this game should be changed just because someone like you can't do it right. Karous, this thread topic is about you buddy. Its not about Mike. Care to explain to us why you should be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 15:52:15 - [287] - Quote Mag's wrote: Leghurt wrote: 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. Santa. Yes. No, it's been like that since you start posting. Yes, pointing out you and Mike are being dishonest is a thankless task, but I don't mind. Brokk was right. You can't help yourself. Pfft. Grow a pair. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 17:15:55 - [288] - Quote Brokk I don't see how Concord's Pilot ID Service (PIDS) can be removed in any other way than by giving the function an entosis toggle on-off. The service has to be seen in the context of Concord providing Gate Services to retain coherency. (I am not going to point out why turning nullsec into deadsec by masking players in system permanently is a horrid marketing idea) Here is what I would do if someone died and made me Dev God: Seekers start shutting down gates and turning off PIDS Forcing players to reactivate gates and PIDS using entosis links (I would make the gates and PIDS start functioning before entosis work is complete) Players can also use entosis links to turn on and shut off gates and PIDS. It gives a lot of pvp opportunity in a reasonable way. I would be looking at other things that trying to entrench a losing mechanism to generate pvp and cause ratting/mining vulnerability. For example Docking up takes time without a tractor beam module installed on citadels (TB giving fast docking if installed) Moon goo collection vulnerability of some sort (the really risk averse isk generating modus is goo transport). Redocking timer on citadels (prolly needed anyway to avoid hotseating between station guns and ship). modules revealing anoms preclude modules that degrade dscan. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 17:17:58 - [289] - Quote Mike Voidstar wrote: They can move, it just slows them down. Even the Prototype users can move, just slowly, and they must break cover to actually warp. I believe if pinpointing is possible it should require not only a specific ship but a specific module on that ship. All I ever asked for was a way to get on grid within a reasonable distance to attempt to find them. Contrary to the hyperbole spewed by Teckos I am not looking to inflict a sentence of certain and uncounterabe death on a cloaked ship, just the ability to put it at some risk, just as it is putting everyone else at risk. As Mag's said TWO WAY STREET. Citadels are to some extent going to become surrogate ships. Its better from an opportunity cost perspective to give citadels a powerful probe high slot for cloaky scanning. It also makes for better team play and citadel integration into pvp. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 17:47:16 - [290] - Quote "Your spam filter probably works the same way" The sublime trollish poetry of suggesting spam filters be introduced to deal with afk cloaky campers. A game mechanism indiscernible from spam is a succinct way of presenting the issue. But arguing you need crutches to ruin mikes day remains invalid. Pray elaborate on why you think ships should be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. That is the position you need to defend. What mind could possibly think that is a good idea? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 18:04:35 - [291] - Quote Great, then you will not mind if Concord stops operating the Gates. Since you do not recognize its authority and all that. Lore does not have to take a back seat to anything: there are no good reasons to turn off Pilot ID Service and Gates in null-sec. However, if you want to do one, you should do both. Did you want to discuss mechanics on how gates/pids could be toggled on off? Losing Sov due to the inability to do nodes for any reason is a design feature, not a bad thing. The point is more that there needs to be counter moves (which there are lots of) That pilots might choose not to fly with entosis links is their problem. At worst you are raising a balance issue on what timer the on-off toggle should be on. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 18:23:43 - [292] - Quote I fail to see why Concord run Pilot ID Services is a flawed mechanism if Concord run Gates in null-sec is not flawed. Are we not running a bit out of steam on the afk cloaky camping issue. Its about afk cloaky campers. Why should they be 1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe There is no valid reason for that to be the case. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 18:48:41 - [293] - Quote You have your stealth. In wormhole space where Concord does not run gates or PIDS. I am not averse to Concord removing the services it provides (or the services being disruptable), but am against decoupling gate and PIDS services. Either both, or neither. But I am reading your post to mean you accept that no pilot in null-sec should be 1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe If you accept that, then we can certainly speculate on what changes CCP might make to the game, but those changes are not conditional on removing 1-4 all being true (3 of 4 is fine). Edit Yes, Teckos. Concord operates both gates and Pilot ID services (PIDS). They are connected. Where there is one, there is the other. Also, points on the tactical possibilities that emerge by closing gates just go to the mechanism of reopening them. I would find it amusing to see a push-shove pile of entosis links on a gate. One side trying to keep it closed, the other trying to open it. There are of course always ways to bypass gates anyway. The point is more that it provides more reason to break up blobs. Which is a good thing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 19:09:45 - [294] - Quote Tecklos And hell camps are relevant how? Hellcamping citadels is done by blowing them up. Hellcamping NPC owned stations will not change. Either you are hell camped or you are not. Closing gates does not change anything. We are pretty much done with the afk cloaky camping topic. Only three of the following are going to be true at any one time: 1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe We are discussing other changes CCP might make. Like toggling gates/Pilot ID services. Which cannot be decoupled. Edit: Is there anything more hipster (see urban dictionary) than obsessively playing EvE "ironically"? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 20:25:09 - [295] - Quote Mike I am actually covering all contingencies. Ships are semi-safe in non-hostile (hisec), and I do think that cloaky player action should be able to counter long range cloaking attempts (by warping off and forcing scanning to restart for example). I categorically dismissed linking docked safety to degrees of undocked safety a number of times. Brokk Its not fine by me. 4/4 cannot reasonably apply. It does not even apply in hisec (afk auto piloted ships are given vulnerability windows prior to jumping gates). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 22:02:44 - [296] - Quote Techos Its not about mike, its about you. Why should a pilot be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe? There is no reasonable justification, so that 4/4 combination is gone as soon as the developers get around to it. You can whine about what "compensation" you think you should get for being afk...and we get to laugh at your whining. So shoot: What compensation do you think you have the right to demand? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 22:35:45 - [297] - Quote Brokk None of the upsides you mentioned are touched by hitting the 4/4. The only criteria a cloaky camper has to meet to be safe is to be at his computer. Plan B for dealing with afk cloaky campers is blueballing them (plan A is making it hard for backup ships to reach core PvE systems as mentioned. Doing that means they will not show up at all). Undocking is counterproductive. Just wait them out and they will leave after a few weeks. Game play at its finest to counter AFK pilots by waiting until they get bored. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 23:07:58 - [298] - Quote Brokk We can assume that the same things you do to not get caught by normal combat probes also apply to enhanced probes. Its counter productive from an alliance-corp perspective. They lay down the law in nullsec. If you don't get safe in a PvE ship, then you can fast find yourself with 24 hours warning to pack up and leave. Which is a huge hassle. We should only pick fights in pvp ships tends to be the ironclad law. Winning or losing is not important as long as you are fitted for bear. Nah, no one knows anything that has not been discussed (though many still do not know things we have discussed). The days of undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe are neigh. That is the only thing we know for sure. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 23:18:29 - [299] - Quote Karous Then you are fine with only 3/4 being true. Which would make this no longer about you. Though the thread topic is still not about mike. Though somehow I feel it still is about you (you might for example think that the risk of being decloaked when at a random spot in a system "proves" that cloaked ships are not invulnerable...or other such nonsense). Edit Those who want no risk in their game play pilot afk cloaky campers or mine moon goo. You need never lose a ship in nullsec doing either. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 23:30:21 - [300] - Quote I find your sense of entitlement lulzy. This is about you, friend. And anyone like you that feels they have some divine right to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. Sorry bro, but that is a no go. But weep your tears on how the devs are going to break the game and feed our sense of merriment. Lulz. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.20 23:45:38 - [301] - Quote Karous Look, I know you suck at pvp just by the way you dont grasp that you have to treat potential victims with respect to encourage them to keep undocking. So I get that you see afk cloaky camping as the only way you can get involved. If I can make a suggestion: Stop sucking at pvp so much. The Affluenza sense of entitlement is just ludicrous. And this thread topic is about you. Its about afk cloaky camping, or the practice being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. Its not about Mike. Its about you. Its over, friend. Why not scoot over to reddit and try to add some actual proper tactics to your otherwise empty toolkit? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.21 04:26:02 - [302] - Quote Teckos Game sucks, does not suck. Who cares? The only thing we are discussing here is afk cloaky camping and will a pilot be: undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. The answer is: No. Grow a pair and learn to live with it. Amuse us with outrageous, entitled demands for compensation until the pair drops. Mags Yes, not giving people the time of day is a pretty powerful insult. Which I will repeat: Pffft. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.21 04:41:32 - [303] - Quote Brokk People are not thinking it through. The only thing getting scanned down really means is you turn cloaky camping into kiting duels. Say you are a cap stable cloaky camper burning at 4000 m/s. What happens if someone gets scans you down where you were? Well, they try to chase you down with a few speed tanked frigates. So you get to kite them for a bit after you voluntarily decloak and when you get bored, or they get close, you warp away. Or warp away immediately if you would rather do that. Or log off for a bit. Whatever. Its not like you were doing anything important in that system that keeps you from logging off. The only fight you get is one you want. Its not dangerous. Unless you are afk. Teckos et al want many things. Their wishes are irrelevant. The only real question is if 4/4 will remain true. The answer to that is no. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.21 16:06:38 - [304] - Quote Morrigan and Teklos This thread is about afk cloaky campers, or pilots that are undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. 4/4 era is over. Learn to live with it. I have not seen anyone complain when 3/4 is true. Your line of argument on gate decloaking is not only off-topic, its also a strawman argument Karous Its not about mike. Its about you. Learn to pvp and you may not be have such a hysterical fear of losing your afk cloaky camper crutch. Harden up would be the sum of it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.21 23:25:42 - [305] - Quote Mike All he is saying is afk campy cloaking does not cause issues when the afk campy cloaker is not afk. Which is both OT and a strawman argument as no one actually disagrees with afk cloaky camping not being a problem when the pilot is at the computer and actively flying the ship. Stunning the intellect you are confronted with. Just stunning. 1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. AFK 4. Safe 3/4 is fine. 4/4 is going to end. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.22 06:37:15 - [306] - Quote Brokk Metas are always OP. Which is the topic for a different discussion. Speed tanked 4/4 is something to be wary of and fixed the same way Metas are. Unsafe until moving assumes active pilot intervention to be safe (and indeed a move I think cloaky campers will make if scanned down. So not afk. (you meant unsafe until moving I think). Gates do not make the afk pilot safe. No one is arguing that the chance to catch undocked, in hostile space, afk, and not safe pilots needs to mean they are at much risk. I would prefer it to be quite the collaborative chore to hunt them down, and when you do, you risk being sniped all to hell before they warp off anyway if the pilot turned out to be ATK after all. Karous Stop projecting. The thread topic is about your entitled synonym for donkey 4/4. Its not about Mike. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.22 07:53:16 - [307] - Quote Teckos Your inner motivations are a bit besides the point, though I think you probably gain indirectly; you are entrenching on afk cloaky camping because heaven forbid any changes that effect blockade runner immunity be introduced. The isk/hour revenue from collecting passively harvested moon goo that is sickeningly high and almost totally risk free. Otherwise "content" and entrenching positions of power old characters love to entrench. Heaven forbid a person without access to moon goo and the multiple accounts that follow should ever be able to accumulate meaningful wealth. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.22 12:47:16 - [308] - Quote You are wasting time. 4/4 is over. Done. Finished. Kanetz. Kaputt. Finito. Slutt. The fat lady sang. All we can hope for now is that it is removed in a manner that impacts on moon-goo collection security. Then the entitled-vet tears will really start to flow. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.22 15:45:14 - [309] - Quote Brokks Yet, this thread is about afk cloaky camping. Itemizing things that are less obscenely safe simply because they are not 4/4 is just a list of things you want devs to look at eventually in addition to fixing 4/4. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.22 18:09:25 - [310] - Quote Mike Keep on fighting the good fight. The fools looks sillier and more dishonest for every post they make. You have won. There will be no more 4/4. Brokk I am not counting you as on the ship of fools. The rattle snake was still not 4/4 and no one is suggesting 3/4 is bad. You can defang Rattlesnakes with command destroyers btw. Microjumpdrive away with his drones, then scoop them to hold (saw it on youtube). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.23 13:24:51 - [311] - Quote Does not matter. The thread topic is the ultra risk aversion inherent to afk cloaky camping. Which will end and transform to mere extreme risk aversion. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.23 16:53:38 - [312] - Quote Karous Nope. Otherwise suggested fixes would be a lot more rigid than simply suggesting a cloaky pilot be like at his computer to retain invulnerability. Nothing is stopping cloaky pilots from you know, actually flying their spaceships. The risk does not change if cloaky pilots are able to meet that onerous condition. All it does is add content as PvE pilots go into hunting mode to verify that cloaky pilots are ATK. Which of course amounts to an insurmountable risk to the perversely extreme risk adverse. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.23 21:54:07 - [313] - Quote Teklos Yes, it is well-known that people with at least partially completed engineer degrees are overrepresented in EvE. With that said; spare us the pseudo science. Not that I am accept your new attempt to control discussion by setting definitions, but we are speaking of extreme risk aversion, not loss aversion. You and others are entrenched on a position that no risk, not matter how small, should be part of the afk cloaky camper equation. The willingness to accept loss does not enter into it because of course even limited risk to afk would simply cause pilots to be at their computers at least very regularly. The difference in to what degree players may have explicitly formulated the risk of loss in various probability functions moves past the pale of irrelevance and into the sublimely insane. I note that you are indeed trying to barter your sense of entitlement into cloak buffs. Like I said you had, and like I said you would. Not going to happen friend undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe is not going to be a possible combination for much longer The tears...its so sad. Really. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.24 13:28:20 - [314] - Quote Romana Erebus wrote: People still crying over "someone cloaked in here and I can't rat!" Leave the cloaky AFK as is. Worst thing that will happen is you will need to fight someone The philosophical issue relates to if someone "should" be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. Or the 4/4 for short. In EvE, the answer to that "should" be no. The projecting issues relate to afk cloaky camper players projecting their perceived need for absolute security and no risk onto others. For example defending their need for absolute security by pretending someone else wants absolute security. The practical issue relates to implicit threat or "pretty big psychological effect" as Fozie calls it. The nature of sov null sec has alliances and corps using 2 techniques to remove implicit threats. One is by removing access to staging bases used by cloaky camper support by expanding sov beyond what an alliance can reasonably use to create a buffer zone. The second is blueballing by ordering PvE players to dock up if reds or neuts are in system. In effect dont play until the reds go away. Neither compensating techniques give desirable game play. The sum of all this means that 4/4 is going to be phased out of EvE. Entrenching on a lost position is silly. Seeking compensation based on a sense of entitlement is also silly. The thread is over for all practical purposes. EvE wins. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.24 15:54:49 - [315] - Quote Morrigan and karous You are actually going in circles by projecting afk cloaky risk aversion onto mike. Its a waste of time. Your battle is lost. Just as the battle for removing Concord's Player ID Service in null sec is lost unless the Devs are also contemplating removing Concord's gates in null sec. Given that those services are interconnected. Though the amazing level of entitlement you have when viewed by the level of compensation you want for changes to the 4/4 is of course mind-boggling. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.24 20:10:36 - [316] - Quote Morrigan and teklos Why are you wasting everyone's time with theories on how Mike should fly his ship? Its pretty off-topic (I suppose you create a thread somewhere called "hey mike, this is how you could fly your ship"). The thread topic has narrowed down to "a pretty big psychological effect" stems from afk cloaky camping being 1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe Or 4/4 for short. You will just have to live with 3/4 in the future. Without compensation. Its very sad. Really. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.25 04:04:26 - [317] - Quote Mike is talking about afk cloaky campers. You know, THE THREAD TITLE? Does CCP award prizes for most off-topic in any thread? You are a strong contender Teckos. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.25 12:46:31 - [318] - Quote Teckos Beyond pointing out that a local discussion is off topic and that the Concord's Pilot ID service is inherently tied to the gates it runs? Or mentioning that even raising no local as compensation for cloak changes shows the gross, bloated sense of entitlement many vets share, and why CCP will never offer that as compensation to cater to their immunity needs? Yah, funny, I have not mentioned it beyond those points. Edit Morrigan Blockade runners really do need a nerf. The risk free PI/moongoo revenue they bring is obscene. Scouts can always be ceptor based. I have yet to lose one. Unless you were talking about afk cloaky scouts getting broken. Well, yah. AFK see. Multiboxing is allowed, but there is no godly reason to cater to vets personal force multipliers. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.25 16:12:26 - [319] - Quote Morrigan But how will you fund isk tanking if certain free lunches are impacted? Ah right. Buying, importing, and selling plex. Like normal people do. You know. Supporting the business side of Eve. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.26 01:45:36 - [320] - Quote Removing null-sec gates and local would really shake things up. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.26 07:28:40 - [321] - Quote A nerf is needed when pilots can be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. It goes against the most basic golden rules of EvE And which is why the nerfbat is coming. The tears, oh the tears. Campbears. Pfft. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.26 09:00:25 - [322] - Quote Who exactly are you trying to influence with you "if you can achieve it docked, then you should achieve it cloaked) line of argument teckos? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.12.26 14:47:23 - [323] - Quote Afk cloaky campers are just campbear fluff for players with PvE (or margin trading, or scamming) financed multiple accounts. Which is why the devs are going to change it to render being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe (4/4) to at least nominally vulnerable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.26 18:23:10 - [324] - Quote Yes, a glaring, sycophantic exception to the rule Capt. Obvious. A vestige from the days when Devs cared a bit too much for the soft and touchy feelings of boorishly entitled vets (and their ever amusing threats of unsubbing EvE funded subscriptions). Those were the days eh? Emphasis on "were". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.26 20:05:32 - [325] - Quote Teckos Maybe they will do something with nullsec gates and pilot id services (but they will not touch one without the other). Wander Project much? You post on behalf of Mike all the time. The answer to your query rests on how development teams are organized. It gives Devs the power to act. Its bad that an uncommitted player (the afk person) can impact so heavily on many active players. This in addition to the philosophical issue regarding 4/4. One downside (entitled vet complaint) is a sign of healthy game The other downside (deflation) can be dealt with in other ways. The only question was if devs have the courage to act. Which team organization gives (you can't scapegoat an entire team). See my sig for a declaratory stance on courage to change. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.26 23:46:39 - [326] - Quote Wander Karous Teckos Yes, we had covered that with the posts on campbears' disgustingly bloated sense of entitlement: "Compensation, compensation"...is there never any end to whiny vet greed? I have nothing against change personally. Limiting nullsec gate functionality and Pilot ID Services sounds like a lot of fun. Those two services being inherently linked and all. (cue: "whine oh no doing that will break EvE"). Making afk cloaky camping (3/4) nominally at least vulnerable is the right thing to do. I am betting on the Devs doing the right thing for reasons given. Its seems you are betting they will not, but betting guardedly; hence the pre-emptive moans in this thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.27 04:11:15 - [327] - Quote Karous You should create a thread on that topic if it interests you so much. This thread is about whiny afk campbears. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.27 15:42:29 - [328] - Quote Yes, I really wish campbears would do exactly that. Though not before we watch them spill their wimpy, entitled tears of course. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.27 16:44:24 - [329] - Quote Wander Nullbears harvest moongoo. Its what you do when you want to do safe PvE in null-sec. Isk/per hour effort here is well beyond 500 mill. The devs know what they are doing. And they are doing it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.27 20:59:58 - [330] - Quote Teckos et al. You get how disingenuous you are, right? You want to null bear and camp bear with impunity, but have the gal to suggest whatever motivates Mike to support change is somehow relevant. If you are worried about low risk isk/hr in nullsec, then direct your complaints towards moongoo and PI, not ratting in null sec which is dangerous and will remain dangerous when afk cloaky camping becomes nominally vulnerable. People. Pfft. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.28 06:18:42 - [331] - Quote What an incredibly off topic post. Removing Concord run gates and Pilot ID Services in null sec is a EvE lore issue that is only related to the thread topic when viewed as a direct compensation for removing 4/4 by rendering afk cloaky camping at least nominally vulnerable. Moon goo and PI are fine only if you believe that ratting and mining in nullsec are disproportionately dangerous and unrewarding. Though it is of course entirely consistent with nullbear entitlement to think that their isk printing machines are fine, but that much poorer isk making machines of others are in danger of becoming OP. Nowhere did I say you thought isk/hr was invalid. That it is being used as a giant orifice probe to attack Mike's possible motivations is beside the point. You may have missed my fundamental message: I do not give a crap about what you think, nor do I need any response from you. I am simply responding to posts here as they are created and repeated. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.28 09:40:36 - [332] - Quote 4/4 is the problem buddy. Why dont you HTFU and adapt to change and how they might possibly impact on wormhole space. "wah Eve ruined because change to [insert thing]" Pfft. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.28 10:06:55 - [333] - Quote Wander Let me run some more moon goo before I get back to you on that one, mkay? Edit: Translation into stupid: Of course I have adapted my playing style a long time ago to avoid off-peak issues with afk cloaky campers. Moon-goo transport is for example not impacted by them at all. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.28 10:12:16 - [334] - Quote Karous What is your poison? Moon goo, scamming, PI, or margin trading? What exactly feeds your bloated sense of entitlement? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.28 10:25:27 - [335] - Quote And since you insist its about me: I muck about in null-sec with my main. I have alt support limited to a single account. Bring in shy of a billion isk/month doing stuff I think is entertaining. Which usually does not include anom ratting or belt mining which I find dull for obvious reasons (though when I do, you will find me in a pvp ready ratting ship, or in a nice T2 mining frigate). I hold a long term, prepaid subscription and buy plex packages when I feel the urge to train alts in something or another. I play with a single screen and single computer unit because the multiboxing aesthetics do not please my sensibilities. I am pretty much the pitch perfect EvE customer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.29 05:11:15 - [336] - Quote Teckos What part of "off-topic" don't you understand? Its a off-topic lore issue if you think Concord's gates and Pilot ID Service should be removed in k-space null-sec only. Its an off-topic mechanics issue if you think Concord's gates and Pilot ID Service should be removed in k-space. Its an off-topic entitlement issue if you think removing local should be compensation given for any nerf on cloaks. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.29 09:52:51 - [337] - Quote Morrigan False. Location accuracy as a function of time would not break ATK cloaked activity for as long as a dscan cue is given the cloaked ship notifying it that the hunt is on and thus triggering avoidance tactics. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 02:07:56 - [338] - Quote Xcom wrote: I believe that the current AFK cloaking mechanic does fit into the current sov meta. Issue is just how the mechanic in itself is flawed. Its silly that we need a flawed mechanic to counter sov behind enemy line cov-ops battles. I think the whole argument loops around when the AFK cloaking is justified as a broken mechanic capping and countering solo farming in null space. The reason it is flawed depends on your perspective. The mechanic allows one detached player impact on how many players go about playing Eve. So is hugely disproportionate. The philosophy that a ship can be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe is bad. The Devs have it under control though. So it will be fixed soon enough. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 09:48:26 - [339] - Quote Mike I don't think anyone minds the ability to actively disrupt isk earning. Its the passive afk bit that is the problem. And I am pretty sure that afk cloaky camping is an unintended player adaptation (afk cloaky camping assumes multiple accounts, unlimited broadband, and additional hardware that would have marginalized to likelihood back in the day). Karous Skilled pvp players do not rely on afk cloaky camping. Its a crutch for the more impaired of campbears. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 11:20:26 - [340] - Quote Karous Its broken for reasons given many, many times. A game mechanic that allows an afk alt in a secondary account dictate the behaviour environment for many, many active players is broken. A game philosophy that allows a pilot to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe (the 4/4) is broken. Afk cloaky camping was never an intended design feature, but became a multiple account player adaptation as hardware availability and internet connection quality matured. Now any idiot and their dog can afk cloaky camp. So its time to fix it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 17:32:33 - [341] - Quote Wander 4/4 is a broken feature that will be removed. And it will be removed directly. Afk cloaky campers are ultimately taking advantage of people paying for subscriptions and using that against them. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 18:17:08 - [342] - Quote Teckos Actually, its paying for a subscription and logging on to the game that causes them to see afk cloaky campers. PS Please try to not be so incredibly disingenuous. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 21:04:46 - [343] - Quote Wander I did 5 frostline sites in a wormhole today. Damn you have it easy. Keep dscan up and start worrying about combat probes only when they start getting within a couple au (a bit lack of talent incidentally to scan down instead of just checking out the sites. Not good adaptation to a change in circumstance that). Afk cloaky camping is an issue because of the implicit threat (or "pretty big psychological effect" as it translates to stupid). You do not fix the issue by making a much bigger implicit threat. Then we would need all kinds of compensations - for example that all sites in null sec have to be scanned down (we know ships are not afk when they flag their presence with combat probes). Otherwise the only viable off-peak PvE in null sec will be PI, Moon-goo, and Wormholes giving access to safe PvE areas (or areas where sites need to be scanned down so ample warning is given that you are being hunted). Ratting and mining in null sec would effectively no longer exist. I can live with that of course, because I am adaptable. I quite like the idea of farming wormholes from a null-sec base. Seems the best of both worlds really. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:07:48 - [344] - Quote Not what happened bro. Just a w-space moron with some combat probes. Feel free to armchair general a few more perfect strategies while I continue to ponder if indeed w-space might be a nice PvE haven for us null-secers. You seem like pretty easy pushovers frankly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:11:06 - [345] - Quote Teckos The issues with your narrative have been rehashed to death in this thread. Fixing an implicit threat issue by making the implicit threat issue far worse is not a fix. Other compensating wh-mechanisms would also need to be imported to null sec if local was removed. Otherwise null-secers will adapt by farming in wh-space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:38:53 - [346] - Quote I should give you pre-warning so you are ready to collapse the wormhole so you can be safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 22:46:43 - [347] - Quote I am sure you are terrific almost bi-weekly when scheduled corp events intersect with lack of real life obligations to give what 20% of you members online for a nice 2 hour ratting adventure.... Other times "better break out that big ship joe, we have a wormhole to collapse". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:32:30 - [348] - Quote You use it as a signature for God's sake. Blah blah remove local this, blah blah remove local that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 10:37:43 - [349] - Quote Teckos Could you please stop acting like a 3rd rate renter diplomat? That is what I mean by disingenuous. Do not take as given for null-sec a mechanism that exists only in whole space. Making "a pretty big psychological effect" much worse is not a fix. Your fix it for a null sec problem that only exists if your signature comes to pass. Create a thread for wormholes where there can be a mechanism to "claw back local". They actually don't have local see. Which your suggestion is aimed at fixing. Perhaps you should create a thread on it? Morrigan Well, yah. Your wishes and a dollar will get you a pack of gum. The Devs are not morons. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 19:29:33 - [350] - Quote Teckos Perhaps try to not have the moral and intellectual sophistication of a two-bit rentercorp diplomat? Local removal in null-sec is a premise and integrated feature of your suggestion on adding some form of surrogate local to compensate for its loss. Now, you can have whatever lore driven fantasies you like on the future of Concord run jump gates and Pilot ID Services, but it remains true that an implicit threat issue is not resolved by making the implicit threat issue far worse. Which of course the Devs know, because they are not the morons you seem to think they are. "Upgrading" local my synonym for donkey. You could not be more disingenuous if you tried. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.01 21:08:13 - [351] - Quote Brokk He does not have a point. "The pretty big psychological effect" is not resolved by superimposing a gigantic psychological effect" to mask the original issue. "True stealth"...You could have that. You mean like a low radar cross section along a specific vector, right? It seems a lot weaker than the current cloaking mechanism, but if that is what you want... There are two issues here and neither involve compensation in any form. 1. The issue of a ship being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. 2. The issue of one detached multi-account holder able to impact on the behaviour of many active pilots. Both points have a high "what a sucky feature" score, and both should be removed. Which the Devs know and will address. What mechanisms may or may not be imported to null-sec from worm-hole space is frankly the topic of a completely different thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 07:17:35 - [352] - Quote Brokk When you look at an afk cloaky camper, you should never, ever imagine that is a paid account. It invariably is not. Afk cloaky camping is just campbear entitlement fluff that is detrimental to the game. The safe pilots now are the ones afk cloaked, the ones doing PI, and the ones running moon-goo. Teckos And there teckos is with his demand for compensation again. No compensation buddy. But why not create a thread on that lore driven silliness removal of local in null sec is? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 11:32:25 - [353] - Quote Morrigan Its broken because it allows a single afk player to influence the behaviour of a much larger number of active players. So is hugely disproportionate and disrespectful of customer time (note that afk pilots do not actually qualify as customers as the accounts they are run from are paid for by PvE, scams, or margin trading). Its broken because it allows the pilot to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe (the 4/4). You could of course compensate for broken mechanics by giving null-sec player controlled gates, making the cyno inhibitor vastly more cost efficient, or requiring that all mining and ratting sites in null-sec need to be scanned down and making the rats omni damage types, and making rats respond in a concord like manner to non sov holder intrusions. In effect just stealing mechanisms from wormhole and high sec space to compensate for the broken mechanics. Note that removing local only masks the implicit threat afk cloaky camping represents by making the implicit threat far worse. That could be brought to null sec only if all of wh-space compensating mechanisms were also brought to null-sec. Or you could just fix the mechanics by making afk cloaky campers nominally vulnerable. Preferably in a way that also make cloaky transport of PI and Moon Goo nominally vulnerable too (where the true nulbears make their isk on a scale that massively dwarves isk/hr revenues of simple miners or ratters). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 12:33:41 - [354] - Quote Morrigan Perhaps work a bit on your reading comprehension skills? Lets try it a different way. "This is CCP customer services. Your opinion is of great importance to us. Please hold until our representative can answer your call. There are two afk cloaky campers ahead of you in line" What do you do? Hold or hang up? There are tons of workarounds to afk cloaky camping. You can find them in high sec and wormhole space. Player control of gate access PvE response to hostile action No cynos Scan sites only Omni damage rats So, yah, you could import those to null-sec. Or you could just fix the broken mechanism directly. What cannot be done is masking the broken mechanism by superimposing a far worse mechanism on top of it (aka evelore based local removal in nullsec). Multiple account holding afk cloaky campers are the ones with disgusting entitlement issues. All anyone wants if for afk camping to be nominally unsafe, perhaps in a way that makes perverse isk/hr revenue from PI and moon goo transport nominally unsafe too. Excuse me for a bit while I spend some time trying to catch ATK campers. You know, the kind of pilots that add content instead of removing it. Afk cloaky camping is just such a disgusting phenomenon. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 14:02:37 - [355] - Quote Morrigan "Edited by: Morrigan LeSante" Lulz. You had to edit....that last post of yours? ROFL. Anyways, just carry on understanding EvE at your own pace. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 14:27:25 - [356] - Quote I listed some of the compensating mechanisms that marginalize the impact of afk-cloaky camping in h-sec and wh-space buddy. You think anyone in null-sec would worry about afk cloaky campers if players could close gates and cynos did not work? Point is, there is no particular reason to not address the broken mechanism directly instead of importing compensatory mechanisms from high sec or wormhole space. Afk cloaky camping is a disgusting travesty that is incompatible with good game design. There really is not other objective way to look at it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 14:55:50 - [357] - Quote Who the hell mines or belt rats in low sec? Or to put it another way. You are not hearing complaints because: 1. Very few people do (the devs can probably check what tiny fraction of ores are mined in low-sec). Or a selection bias buddy. But nothing is new about that. Communication channels with CCP are traditionally gooed shut by disgustingly entitled vet slime seeking to entrench their outrageous privilege by spamming echo-chamber output. Much to the detriment of the game. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 15:14:27 - [358] - Quote Young pilots in affordable ships often belt rat in null-sec. Either as part of small scale mining operations or as an alternative to low grade anoms. The reason there is no point talking to me is because you are entrenched on trying to maintain privilege (in this case a nice EvE funded multiple account perk that afk cloaky camping is). A more open mind would see the content possibilities that arise from having time sensitive small gang activity based on hunting for cloaked ships using a mechanism that is defeated by active cloaked ship pilot countermeasures. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.02 20:14:44 - [359] - Quote Teckos Reverse order Wow, even your PI and moon goo logistics logic suck. You should find yourself a better reddit page to rip things off. Of course you use a blockade runner to do both in null sec. No hassle and completely risk free. As my killboard shows. What part of DISPROPORTIONATE don't you get? It is hugely disrespectful of paying customers to allow a freeloading, passive secondary account pilot to impact on the behaviour of many active players. It is a truly sucky mechanic thats existence can only be explained by the entitled vet oozing echo chamber spam that clogs the feedback channels to CCP. Talk about playing the selection bias card for all it is worth in an attempt to generate a game environment with 0 new recruitment. In addition to the broken aspect of an afk camping cloaked ship being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe. Its laughable that this is still a things. See above paragraph for how players like you are doing your damnest to destroy EvE. Apres Nous le deluge, eh buddy. If you cannot keep afk cloaky camping completely invulnerable, then you want compensation. Its part of the old vet pathology to want compensation for everything even if it were not demonstrably true in your case. Removal of local being the specific compensation you desire. "Upgrading local" Pffffft. Jesus H. Christ. Yes, if afk cloaky camping is not addressed directly, then it need be addressed indirectly by importing mechanisms from wormhole or highsec space. Which is not a particularly desirable outcome as the matter can be resolved at the source. Why? Because afk cloaky camping is an multiple account holding piece of entitled crap. It has no place in the game. Brokk I shorthanded the point on better null-sec cyno inhibitors as a compensatory mechanism duplicating that found in high sec and w-hole space. Its not a good solution. Its better to hit the source and make afk cloaky camping nominally vulnerable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 08:20:48 - [360] - Quote Dragoon We are speaking of afk cloaky camping here. As per, you know, thread title. Not cloaking in a general sense. Not Evelore driven desires to fundamentally change Concord provided gate services or Pilot ID services. Afk cloaky camping is elitist prick, freeloading, multiple account holding, entitled vet crap. It is extremely detrimental to the game. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 10:33:06 - [361] - Quote Rendering afk cloaky camping nominally vulnerable does not require and should not be given compensation. I am not against change in general, but changes cannot be coupled to compensating EvE financed, multiple account holders for the tremendous burden of being ATK while undocked and in hostile space if they wish to remain safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 11:35:27 - [362] - Quote Mike You are not really disagreeing. The afk influence on active players is profound merely because it can be sustained without cost. You are suggesting the issue can be resolved by a proximity warning when a cloaked ship lands on grid. That would also work of course. The additional "blind as if in a station" while cloaked simply degrades utility somewhat. Wander A mechanism requiring active cloaked pilot intervention to remain safe would only render afk pilots unsafe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 17:47:37 - [363] - Quote Morrigan You really should create a thread. "Evelore local. Time for a change" There. I even gave you the title. This thread is about afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 20:11:13 - [364] - Quote Afk cloaky camping is fixed by a mechanism that requires active player intervention for a cloaked ship to remain safe. Or, optionally, a proximity warning could alert ships whenever a cloaked ship arrives on grid. If you wanted to fix it Mike's way. Easy peasy. Once you get passed entitled vet spam of course. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.03 21:26:20 - [365] - Quote Concord Gate and Pilot ID Services would be a topic for a different thread. Perhaps in the Evelore or roleplaying section of the forum. Entitlement is part of veteran player pathology. Look at any thread, or even any post created by a certain type of veteran and you will see passive-aggressive entrenchment, bloated entitlement, loathsome elitist prick disrespect, outrageous petitions for compensation and disgusting echo-chamber spam accentuating the selection bias that clogs communication channels to CCP. Afk cloaky camping is Eve funded multiple account fluff that is detrimental to the game. It will not be a thing for much longer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 05:52:09 - [366] - Quote Maria Just review the thread. The arguments have been made. Teckos You are trying to kill the game actually. Apres Nous le Deluge, eh buddy. Karous What emotion? Simple statement of fact. For emotion, see any post you have ever made. Oh and on the wager? That answered my query on if you were into scamming. "The devs did not physically touch cloaks in 2016. Learn to read. Double your isk" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:40:55 - [367] - Quote Maria You could just view my posts. I would be more helpful, but have been given few indications this is a good faith discussion. Mag's You do not need to be a rocket scientist to recognize the clinical signs of entitled vet pathology. Morrigan Want some eggs to go with your spam? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 16:41:58 - [368] - Quote That thing that has nothing to do with this thread you mean. Can you please take your Evelore driven fantasy over to the roleplaying section of this forum instead of spamming it in this thread? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 17:50:50 - [369] - Quote Have you created the thread in the role playing section like I suggested? I cannot take you suggesting you will cease spamming this thread seriously if you have not found a release elsewhere. It does not matter why afk cloaky camping is an implicit threat. It is an implicit threat that is recognized as undesirable by the developers. They translated implicit threat to stupid for your convenience; you may want to backtrack a bit if you still do not understand what implicit threat means. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 18:11:32 - [370] - Quote Still not grasping "implicit threat" or as the devs called it after helpfully (or not so helpfully as it turns out) translating it to stupid for you: "pretty big psychological effect" Perhaps you would have been able to grasp it more easily if you had not been so out of step with normal single account players. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 18:51:52 - [371] - Quote Morrigan Selection bias, variations in game mechanics, corp and alliance micromanagement, afk cloaky camper density. Its not like this is virgin territory. You have been schooled in this already. The average paying EvE customer plays about 10 hrs a week for about 2 months before finding something more meaningful to do with his time (trial subscriptions have a median play time of less than 15 minutes). They don't make it to this forum much. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:10:07 - [372] - Quote Selection bias This forum and most other lines of communications to CCP are spammed shut by self-congratulatory elitist pricks. Experienced Null-sec players will occasionally try to outshout the entitled vet echo chamber as it takes a takes a certain calibre of brass balls to even bother. Newer players that actually depend on ratting and mining income are simply not heard. Lets spend the next 25 posts discussing this one before moving on. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:18:47 - [373] - Quote Morrigan I don't think there are words small enough to explain anything to you that you would understand. And no, like I said earlier; I am sure 0.0001% of all ores are mined in low sec. Give or take an order of magnitude. Edit And 0.0001% of rats killed are non-incursion/fraction war rats in low sec too for that matter. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 06:25:42 - [374] - Quote Maria Pulled out of Teckos posterior. As the "give or take an order of magnitude" indicated. We do not need the actual data. The Devs do and they can access it more elegantly than the method employed in this paragraph's first sentence. Alyssa Sure they could transfer Gate and Pilot ID Service control to Sov holders (which are the two linked features). But that really is an Evelore driven topic unrelated to afk cloaky camping (lore driven by defining the transfer as one limited to null-sec only. You would have to argue local removal in all k-space for it to be a mechanics issue). The link between local and afk cloaky camping was created by the entitled vet echo chamber. Its part hopefully thinking fantasy from misinterpreting a dev post, part gross entitlement compensation pathology (if you weaken x, then we demand y as compensation), and part entrenched stonewalling (ah so complex, so much is interrelated. afk cloaky camping can only be fixed after a full coding review and complete game audit part of exhaustive change list. In the fullness of time in due course. Apres Nous le deluge). Its like 6-week release cycles never happened in the elitist prick universe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 06:40:59 - [375] - Quote Maria No one has hard evidence except the Devs who will implement change base on the evidence they have at hand. Employ any entitled prick pathology tool you like to spam this thread. Its not like you will be able to generate anything original not spammed here already. Edit And Devs do not need perfect information either. They have 6 week release cycles. So can do whatever they like and simply rollback things that do not function as intended. Thing is Maria. You have lost. The Devs are going to fix afk cloaky camping because they know it is truly sucky, EvE financed multiple account fluff. The only thing you can do is spam and hope for the best. Spam away my friend, spam away. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 06:56:23 - [376] - Quote Ah, the self-congratulatory elitist prick pathology. Have to love it. Let me give you a "like" Maria. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 07:07:30 - [377] - Quote Maria Really? That is what you think happened here? hahahahaha Now go to school. You mom will be mad if you miss your bus. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 07:30:33 - [378] - Quote Too much information there sonny. Edit it down. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 08:08:25 - [379] - Quote Maria Oh, I understand entirely what you think you are doing. You just suck at it. Seems to be a pattern that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 08:48:37 - [380] - Quote Morrigan Characterizing a group of players negatively long pre-dated my entry into this thread. You may want to pay heed to your own message and pay attention to the arguments, not the motivations of the poster making the argument. Motivational analysis is by definition an adhom attack (or possibly adhom defence if you believe to motives of the person reach certain purity thresholds). And uhm, when commentating on the sad state of affairs regarding adhoms, then perhaps try to not make the comment in the form of an adhom attack? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.05 09:01:18 - [381] - Quote Brokk My line of thinking is not dissimilar to yours. Hence my axis of attack being limited to the afk contribution to 4/4. I am fine with cloaked ships running a gauntlet of small degrees of vulnerability to do their thing (whatever that might be). The afk bit removes vulnerability as it can be sustained indefinitely within a system and the afk tool is not newbro accessible as it requires multiple accounts (of which only the first -at best- is a paid subscription). Afk cloaky campers really are Eve financed multiple account fluff. One of those established entitlement issues that some long term players will go to great lengths to protect. As QED'd in this thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 06:46:38 - [382] - Quote Teckos Removing local masks the afk cloaking issue by superimposing a far worse implicit threat into null-sec. Compensating mechanisms would need to be far more than the ability to deploy a module and would also have to include Sov holder control of gates in addition to importing many other features found in wh and high sec space. It really is quite off-topic. Through not my call. We can just ask the moderators if the thread continues along the observation array tack. AFK cloaky campers really are EvE financed multiple account* fluff. Accounts you control, but do not pay for with RL funds. Not realistically accessible to the average EvE player (who is about 2 months old and who plays about 10hrs a week). So just another one of those established entitlements. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 08:21:59 - [383] - Quote Teckos Yes, it is quite possible that newer players are paying cash so that older players can have Eve funded multiple accounts (though it equally could be plexes dropped from frostline sites). We can call this the pay to lose model if you like. You are seriously trying to argue that established players pay for multiple accounts with real life money? They pay for 1 subscription at best. The rest is Eve funded. Including specifically the account used for afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is Eve funded multiple account fluff. One of those established entitlements that established players will go to great lengths to defend. As the post tiericide done yesterday by the moderators proves. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:08:04 - [384] - Quote Morrigan Correct. Vulnerability to unsolicited pvp is indeed the game. Thank you for succinctly summing up my argument. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:18:58 - [385] - Quote Morrigan I reported your post last post. Lets see if the new sheriff is in town. For the snide "whine" comment. AFK cloaked ships are entirely fight capable. That the player controlling it chooses to do other things is really his decision. That he is invulnerable is however a huge game play issue. For reasons repeated ad nauseum in this thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 10:56:58 - [386] - Quote Wander I can see why afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space. Its multifaceted. I am not adverse to nabbing mechanisms from wh-space and importing them to nullsec, but the afk cloaky camping issue is really best dealt with directly. Null-sec should really not be wormhole space in everything but name. It would flatten the game. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 12:01:12 - [387] - Quote Morrigan Incursions, burner missions or faction war you were thinking? Sure, why not. Not like there is much else to do in lowsec (the devs can check relative activity levels in different areas if they like). Wander As I point out when people raise the no local in null-sec spectre. Like I said; the issue with afk cloaky camping is best dealt with directly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 14:33:33 - [388] - Quote Wander Well, for as long as high sec also gets T3 loot as compensation for becoming wormhole surrogates, then I am sure they will be happy to lose local. Or probably not. It does not seem like good game design somehow to make the server seem empty. But this thread is actually about afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:09:05 - [389] - Quote Wander Hence my precision targeting only the afk contribution to the 4/4 (undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe). The impact of an ATK criteria to maintain the current status quo is hardly an outlandish demand. Teckos The whole OA discussion is an off-topic strawman that perhaps is deserving of its own thread, but does not belong in this one. I also did not make a strawman argument as I seriously doubt you meant the local surrogate to be universally deployed and free of cost. It would incidentally also require that gates become player controlled. But that is still a discussion for a completely different thread. None of this is a pre-requisite for changing cloaks, nor a consequence of doing so. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 15:46:24 - [390] - Quote Wander If a complete audit were required, then it would relate more to reviewing afk behaviour. Given that afk is the target criteria. But the whole point of 6 week release cycles is give leeway for changes without full information on their potential impact. Which is unreachable anyway as emerging player adaptation always changes the evaluation basis. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 1	Posted - 2016.01.06 16:14:00 - [391] - Quote A mechanism that renders a cloaked ship nominally vulnerable unless the cloaked pilot compensates by doing anything is hardly game breaking Wander. I think the danger is much more on the side of players adapting to keeping afk cloaked invulnerability despite developer intentions, than it is likely to impact on the side of effecting ATK cloaked pilots. Essentially, I think it will take a couple tries to get right in any event. The reason established players are against the proposal has much more to do with wanting to retain afk cloaked camping invulnerability, than it has to do with any unforeseen consequences. I get it. Afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. So people defend it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 3	Posted - 2016.01.06 18:09:02 - [392] - Quote Wander You are not really the choir I am preaching to. Shall we simply agree to disagree? Morrigan In its simplest form then. A citadel module exists. When activated and after a certain delay: On screen message to cloaked ship: "You have been targeted by a decloaking device. Recalibrate cloak [right click on module to select recalibrate] within 60...59...58 seconds [timer] or cloak will deactivate. Failure to right click causes cloak to deactivate. Ship is no longer both afk and cloaked. It might still be speed tanked or whatever, but that does not concern me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 3	Posted - 2016.01.06 20:35:07 - [393] - Quote Teckos If catching an active cloaker is not part of OA function, then it is needlessly complex. A simple Decloaking Array (DA) is a much better fit. A ship targeted by the DA becomes uncloaked unless the pilot intervenes to avoid being decloaked. Then normal scanning procedures can follow. Followed by normal hunting routines. A DA also avoids Evelore awkwardness inherent to any OA suggestion (why would local be transferred to player control in null-sec, but not low and high sec? Why would local be transferred to player control in null sec, but gates would not be transferred to player control in null-sec?). A DA also avoids the awkwardness of giving the perception of depopulated space inherent to transferring local to player control. Its not good that it looks like no one is playing Eve in the region you might be in. Edit Not to mention the biggest issue. Transferring local to player control only masks the implicit threat afk cloaky campers represent by creating a far bigger implicit threat issue (remembering that implicit threat is defined as "a pretty big psychological impact"). It simply is not a viable contribution to the afk cloaky camping issue. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 4	Posted - 2016.01.07 04:39:16 - [394] - Quote Tekos The DA array is simply a much better idea if we limit the scope to afk cloaky camping. Or a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes to avoid being decloaked. The thing that annoys me about the OA is that is masks the afk cloaky camping issue by superimposing a far worse psychological effect on the area of space afflicted by the mechanism. The OA also creates the impression that Eve space is empty The OA cannot be reasonably introduced without also giving player control over gates The OA suggestion is entirely lore base unless it was meant as a mechanical solution for all of Eve space. The OA is entirely off topic and you have raised it in this thread more than 30 times. The actual thread for the topic has only a few posts. I am reporting it as off-topic spam. In addition to other violations of forum rules. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 5	Posted - 2016.01.07 06:04:36 - [395] - Quote Summary of my position Afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. It is hugely disproportionate as it allows an afk pilot to significantly impact on the behaviour of many active players It is not duplicable by the average player with x-month seniority; The afk subscription is invariably funded by ingame resources. It gives 4/4 invulnerability (undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe) It discourages ingame activity and ultimately impacts on player retention (the average x-month old player quitting after y-months). Its sole redeeming feature is how it impacts on other forms of afk behaviour. This suggest that measures targeting afk cloaky camping should target the afk component and that an audit should primarily consider other forms of afk behaviour. The best way to resolve the afk cloaky camping issue is by introducing a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless a pilot actively intervenes to remain cloaked. Mechanisms of this type include giving cloak modules a charge requirement, or introducing a citadel based array that will decloak a vessel unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes. Any measure need only be nominally effective as human error inherent to afk will assure sufficient impact. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 5	Posted - 2016.01.07 06:33:41 - [396] - Quote Maria 42. 42 players are impacted for every afk cloaky camper. Do you need the source, or do you know the reference? You may otherwise assume exactly what you like. There are lots of hoops you can jump through to ID which of a player's subscriptions are pvp, and which are afk cloaky campers. None of which are enjoyable, or contribute to the game in a positive manner. Yes, we know that the average x-month old player is the one actually paying real money for the established player's afk cloaky camping subscription. We can call it The pay to lose model if you like. I know how cloaks work. And how bookmarks work for that matter. Careful with that tack, you are almost in adhom territory. I was not speaking of new players. I was speaking of the average player. Who is way younger than you think. Citadels are going to replace pos bubbles. But feel free to create a thread on that topic if you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 5	Posted - 2016.01.07 06:56:28 - [397] - Quote Teckos You have the right to your opinion of course. The first bulk seems to go to disputing that afk cloaky camping is even a thing. It is a thing. Surprisingly given how fundamentally unreasonable it is. So hopefully not a thing for much longer. Suggesting there is an opportunity cost to afk cloaky camping masks how established players generate income. It is of course entirely possible to do things that would have an opportunity cost (multiboxing for isk in one way or another), but those are time limited and allow for afk cloaky camping when multi boxing is not taking place. In addition to scamming alts, margin trading alts, and passive income collecting alts. All of which have finite duration activity - allowing afk cloaky camping to take place when other alts on that subscription are not doing their thing actively. You can list many behavioural changes you think players should make because of afk cloaky camping. It just underlines that afk cloaky camping does impact on the behaviour of many. You did not quite understand what I meant by "only redeeming feature" That is ok. You are not really my target audience. The mechanism should not impact on non-afk pilots. It might, but I am merely outlining what the mechanism should resemble conceptually. The Devs can figure out the nuts and bolts. Tekos, I get that it is an established multiple account entitlement, but that does not make it right, nor does it follow that losing the entitlement should entail some form of compensation. Maria Adjusted raw data from Steam. Its against forum rules and off-topic to pontificate too much about these things however. As you would find out quickly if you created a thread on the topic. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 5	Posted - 2016.01.07 07:24:19 - [398] - Quote Teckos No. Everything does not. Afk cloaky camping fills downtime between activity with other alts on that subscription. 0 opportunity cost of managed well. 0 opportunity cost is inherent to the afk portion. IF ATK, then opportunity cost is incurred. Maria You do not need the data. The Devs do and they have NDA access. But it is easy enough to replicate. Go to steam gauge to read generalized player characteristics (how often/long do the play a game they have bought on steam), then correlate with the specifics for Eve online to see if it corresponds. Eliminate trial accounts by deducting median from the average. Bobs your uncle. You can report this post if you like. It sorts under rumourmongering and should be deleted. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 09:46:11 - [399] - Quote Teckos That pretty much sums it up. If a pilot has any other possible action, then he will log off the afk cloaky camper while he does that action with one of the two other alts on that account. So 0 opportunity cost. Thus, no income is lost due to afk camping which by definition is an afk activity. You might argue that the player could have afk [something else] instead, but both mining and ratting require player input, so I would be at a loss to know what loss you might be thinking of. In sum, if you have something better to do, then do that. Afk cloaky camping is for when, you know, you are afk. The premise otherwise are easily verifiable. By those that might want to verify things as part of their decision making process. Why you feel the need to mask why and how experienced players can leverage isk in game is frankly a bit beyond me. Its not exactly a well-kept secret. Careful with the adhoms. I can live with any standard of debate. But will not live by a different standard than is otherwise accepted by the moderators. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 14:12:38 - [400] - Quote Xcom Afk cloaky camping is an established multi account entitlement. Its hardly surprising established players defend it uhm vigorously. We just have to trust that devs know arguments in favour of it are not representative of the EvE player base, nor would EvE's player base humour thoughts of compensation (which ultimately is what removing local is) in exchange for curtailing an established entitlement. The rest of what you see in this thread is debate technique resting on the wrong side of forum rules, but ultimately just seeks to drown legitimate issues, and promote specific agenda many enough times for them to become echo chamber truisms. You have summed up the sad state of affairs in this thread. Moderators should remove the sticky. It would ultimately save them a lot of work. All the sticky does is make this thread a particularly attractive soapbox to posture in. It would be easier to simply transfer errant threads to this one occasionally. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 14:55:49 - [401] - Quote Edit Never mind. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 15:26:01 - [402] - Quote Morrigan You are assuming that all areas of space need to be equal and that indeed the mechanic would not be deployable in all areas of space. Tranquility T3 in UK. Shutting down afk cloaky camping nodes saves coal produced electricity. Reducing greenhouse gas emitting coal consumption would be a direct consequence of logging off afk cloaky campers. Which is social responsibility and global stewardship friendly. Its a pertinent argument that has a direct causal relationship. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 16:00:16 - [403] - Quote Maria Nice strawman presentation. Totally against forum rules, but hey, who cares about rules, right? Wormholes to have specific mechanics that influence the impact of afk cloaky camping. Those could be imported to wormhole space, but it is better to address afk cloaky camping directly and specifically by addressing the afk component. Yes, the level of exchange here has been way too low. Hence the importance of abiding by forum rules now. An easy fix to afk cloaky camping is simply to disconnect inactive pilots with active cloaks after a certain time interval with no activity. Doing that has the advantage of both resolving the afk cloaky camping issue, and demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship (which are actually important things). A DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a charge requirement for cloaks. So the modules need to be reactivated after being reloaded. Which requires a pilot to be active to keep his cloak operational. A EVEN DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a mechanism that decloaks ships unless the pilot does something/anything to show activity and retain the cloak. There is no need to provide compensation for changing a established multiple account entitlement. Which is all changing local amounts to. Unless you meant it should be changed in a logical manner (local info transferred to sov holders and available only to those blue to sov holders). That would be a pretty extreme advantage to give sov holders in a system. The Developers understand the force in being/implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect afk cloaky camping represents. This point has been rehashed to death in this thread. I suggest you review earlier posts if you have missed that entire aspect. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 16:39:49 - [404] - Quote Maria Feel free to report any post of mine you find out of line. Or the player controlled ability to close gates combined with no cyno availability. Which are actual features that limit the impact stemming from afk cloaky camping (local removal would seriously increase the impact) So, yah, you could give null-sec holders control of their gates and seriously changing the cyno inhibitor are alternative ways of bypassing afk cloaky camping. But it is better to address the issue directly by attacking the afk contribution to the problem. Disconnecting afk cloaky campers is a valid option that would immediately resolve afk cloaky camping in addition to directly demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship. The argument is neither off-topic or silly. Do not underestimate the feel good factor of playing EvE. I like that part of its server mass is driven by volcanic activity and it is part of what brought me to the game in the first place (I came here by way of an engineering project looking at low delta T Stirling Engines. Yah, I am that kind of guy). Which in turn is one of the reasons I dislike afk cloaky camping. Computers and servers idling away on nothing much insults my sensibilities. But no, lets just stop with disconnecting inactive pilots with active cloaks. Given that it is the topic of this thread. A charge requirement is simply a balance issue relating to how much space a charge takes. In the case of nanite repair paste it is negligible, but could obviously be tweaked down even further if charge volume was a real concern. It does not break anything. A mechanism that requires a pilot to be ATK to retain his cloak is neither too strong, or too weak. It simply requires that a player is ATK to retain the current status quo. The echo chamber certainly resounds with the noise of no local. It seemly was inferred from fuzzy saying afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space and that there are good reasons for that. As to resolving the issue in a timely manner. That would be about now. The ability to run concurrent clients is becoming widespread and of course multiplies what used to be a pretty marginal issue. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.07 17:15:19 - [405] - Quote Teckos You cannot prove afk cloaky camping has an opportunity cost by saying other things have an opportunity cost. The logic is invalid. I will refer you to the "force in being"/"implicit threat"/"pretty big psychological effect" part of this thread that has been rehashed to death. The effect can of course be minimized in other ways (for example giving sov holder control of gates, or by dramatically improving function/cost of cyno inhibitors), but it remains best to attack the afk component of afk cloaky camping directly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 18:08:15 - [406] - Quote Maria Always a chance that... Indeed. Just as I imagine that there might always be a chance that hostile pilots might entosis open a player controlled gate in null-sec. The horror. But yes. Both represent implicit threats. Weak implicit threats. But implicit threats all the same. HTFU is a sentiment I am a firm believer of. I think the wording choice in "afk cloaky camping is established multiple account entitlement" indicates what group of players I think need hardening up some. This is a big point. There is a selection bias in who CCP gets feedback from that seriously promotes the interests of established players. That is ok in one sense, but on the other hand, someone has to voice concern on behalf of the silent majority (as a great speech writer for Ronald Reagan coined it). In null-sec, afk cloaky camping impacts disproportionately on newer players that rely on ratting and mining income to fund their peak time pvp activity (in null sec isk is a means to an end). Older players have more sophisticated access to isk generation that is not heavily impacted by afk cloaky camping. This is of course a generalization. I am quite sure I did mention that auditing in space afk activity in general is reasonable to link to targeting the afk component of afk cloaky camping. Marginal charge carrying criteria does not break anything. Nor is it magical. There are quite a number of modules that use charges. Mike mentioned that "break" should be examined critically, and I tend to agree. It is often used a bit hyperbolically and in a manner that seems incompatible with HTFU principles. Fozie is saying there are good reasons for why unquantifiable threats do not have a big psychological effect in wormhole space. I have listed some of them earlier and could happily do so again. Note that removing local creates an unquantifiable threat, it does not diminish it. So naturally, the compensating mechanisms are pretty powerful. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 18:36:51 - [407] - Quote Maria Oh boy. A typical established afk cloaky camping multiple account entitlement setup A trading alt, a PI/moongoo alt a afk cloaky camping alt. afk cloaky camper is logged on. Player logs on, does his trading stuff and logs Player logs on, does his PI moongoo stuff and logs Player logs on with his afk cloaky camper Player goes to his main account does stuff afk cloaky camper remains online. Is checked occasionally to see if opportunity knocks for blop. Player decides to wash hair. Logs off main account afk cloaky camper remains online Player sleeps, gets up, goes to work. afk cloaky camper remains online Server downtime. Afk cloaky camper logs off. Player returns home from work Logs on trading alt and does stuff, then logs Logs on PI/moongoo alt and does stuff, then logs Logs on afk cloaky camper Rinse repeat. 0 opportunity cost. The limiting factor is how much time the player can spend actively playing EvE split across 6 pilots. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 18:49:01 - [408] - Quote Maria hehe, I am not the one defending established entitlement, so am doing good in the HTFU department. Afk cloaky camping impacts disproportionately on those that rely on the relatively accessible and work intensive ratting and mining. We can call them unsophisticated players if you like. In null-sec they are off-peak ratting and mining to fund peak time pvp activity. For in null sec, isk is a means to an end. You do not need to balance removing an established entitlement. You just remove it. The issue with afk cloaky camping is the implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect it causes. Removing local masks the issue by creating a far worse implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect. Doing that would need very powerful compensating mechanisms like the kind you find in wormholes. For example player control of access to a system. Having control of that lowers all implicit threats dramatically. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 19:14:07 - [409] - Quote Maria Oh sigh. The limiting factor is not available pilots. The limiting factor is real life time to manage them actively, and difficulties involved with managing more than 1 pilot actively at a time. afk cloaky camping is free as the alternative is not doing something else with the pilot (if that is ever an alternative, then you should do something else with that pilot and scale up with another 3, 6, or 9 pilots until you reach your personal capability limit), its what to do with a pilot slot you could not otherwise employ due to real life constraints. The answer of course is to afk cloaky camp until hell freezes over. The afk cloaky camping account does not cost you a dime, though newer players are paying for it of course. The pay to lose model. I could pontificate on the ponzi-scheme aspects of Eve I suppose, but perhaps in a different thread. So what I am saying is that Eve is designed in a way that lets established players generate isk relatively easily. To a point where the limitations rotate around real life time to manage the pilots they can pay for using game generated revenue. When n pilots is reached, then the +1 is an afk cloaky camper. There are variations on the theme of course. But that is the baseline. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 19:25:12 - [410] - Quote Tekos You are not doing it right if that is the case. Use n pilots for active play until your real life limit is reached. Use the +1 to afk cloaky camp. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 22:28:42 - [411] - Quote Morrigan Is it that you do not understand what a "force in being"/"implicit threat"/pretty big psychological effect" is still? Well, lets take your position at face value. I will add another fix then: Afk cloaky camping can be fixed by providing system wide information on how long ago it was since the cloaked ship was actively controlled. Its a bit hamfisted, but would resolve the issue. Afk cloaked ships are indeed no problem at all for as long as we all know they are afk. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 22:49:13 - [412] - Quote Teckos Yes, you can increase your n number of active pilots to anything you like. But when you have dedicated every single minute of every single hour of your life to managing all the active pilots, then you should add additional pilotd and use those for afk cloaky camping. You are doing it wrong if there is an opportunity cost attached to afk cloaky camping. Its in the name: "AFK". Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. The limit here is the limit on how many active pilots real life allows you to manage. Once you have reached your personal saturation point, you afk cloaky camp with as many pilots as you like really. There is a limit that depends on how efficiently you generate isk with your active pilots interacting in Eve. Understanding economics assumes your understand what limits activity. In EvE that resource is real life time. Time is the finite resource and hence adding a time requirement to maintain a cloak breaks the afk component. People simply do not have the time to manage an enduring cloaky camper. They cannot afford to spend the time as it would entail an actual opportunity cost. Which of course is why all my suggested fixes rotate around having pilots spend time to maintain an active cloak. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.08 23:38:58 - [413] - Quote "Your reasoning is trying to pretend isk is a limit. Its not. 3 pilots to an account interact with the Eve universe to generate more than what a plex costs each month. The limit here is the limit on how many active pilots real life allows you to manage. Once you have reached your personal saturation point, you afk cloaky camp with as many pilots as you like really. There is a limit that depends on how efficiently you generate isk with your active pilots interacting in Eve. Understanding economics assumes your understand what limits activity. In EvE that resource is real life time. Time is the finite resource and hence adding a time requirement to maintain a cloak breaks the afk component. People simply do not have the time to manage an enduring cloaky camper. They cannot afford to spend the time as it would entail an actual opportunity cost. Which of course is why all my suggested fixes rotate around having pilots spend time to maintain an active cloak." ============== Feel free to share links to these posts. The CSM election is coming up after all :). What I wrote above is true for as long as an account generate more isk than the account costs. You could add accounts infinitely. If not for time. Once you run out of time, you afk camp. If you still have time to do productive stuff you could have used the afk cloaky camper on, then you are doing afk cloaky camping wrong and would have to carry the burden of income loss on the shoulders of poor optimization. Which is all fine and good. But do not mistake poor optimization for an opportunity cost. For proof of concept: A cloaked ship's pilot has to spend 1 second every 3 hours to keep the cloak activated. There. I just broke afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 09:48:01 - [414] - Quote Teckos We are speaking the same language now, right? 1 account has up to 3 pilots. I get that you might be saying generating a plex per pilot is challenging. Suggesting it is difficult per account is ludicrous. On Tranquillity at least. The Chinese server pushes that envelope a lot more. Isk generation is scalable infinitely for individual players if but for time. You really are doing afk cloaky camping wrong if it has an isk opportunity cost for you. And doing something wrong is poor optimization that can be blamed entirely on not mastering Eve well enough to afk cloaky camp effectively. Which is ok. But is not an opportunity cost issue. Its a learn to optimize properly issue. Maria There are many ways to play EvE. What you are saying there is that there is an opportunity cost to PvPing. Which again is not really true as you are choosing sub-optimal isk generation to devote more time to pew-pew. Which is fine. But you should not even be thinking of afk cloaky camping with a pilot if you have time to dedicate that pilot to isk generation instead. Wander You misread what I posted (it was 1 second of 10800 btw, so 99% is off by a couple orders of magnitude). It is enough to break afk cloaky camping even if players monitor afk cloaky camping a bit more frequently on average. This due to human error inherent to afk giving acceptable attrition rates (acceptable to those hunting afk cloaky campers). Force in being/implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect is an acknowledged issue. Wormhole stabilizer has turned up in reddit as a possible citadel module. Say we installed one of those in our null-sec system to give us the 3 days we need to burn a wh-citadel or 10. Do you see how your wh space would become very unsafe while we kept that gate (yes, wormholes are gate surrogates) open while we camped the crap out of you while we did our thing? Do you feel a bit implicitly threatened now? Well, that is just one of many compensating mechanisms in wh space that reduce implicit threat from afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:07:57 - [415] - Quote Wander But for the boisterous defenders of established multiple account entitlement it might have. It used to be more of a marginal issue (there are hardware requirements that have become much more commonplace). Anyone and their dog can afk cloaky camp once they learn to manage their time effectively. Morrigan Or...an established multiple account entitlement could simply be removed with no compensation. I vote for doing that. Kaarous It is hardly projection for Xcom to point out that all we are doing here is sharing banter and opinion. Send a paper letter to CCP if you want real traction (I pre-beta test a game series, and have used the power of the pen to bypass test team lead intransigence on occasion. With good effect I might add). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:05:17 - [416] - Quote Xcom I would not bother being baited by Karous when he types out stuff like the post you cited. The thread is actively monitored by moderators. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.10 00:58:35 - [417] - Quote Teckos Your game play in Eve will improve dramatically when you understand the finite resource is real life time, and not isk or number of accounts on the Tranquillity server. Your reasoning is better suited the Chinese environment where isk generation is more of a limiting factor (It requires a lot more time and skill to plex an account there). Though of course I am simply assuming you are a Tranquillity player. I get that you want local removed as compensation for losing an established multiple account entitlement. My vote is for removing an established multiple account entitlement without compensation. Changes to local being a decoupled topic that is entirely separate from afk cloaky camping. And not a very popular topic at that given how little traction the actual thread on that topic has generated. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.10 02:54:55 - [418] - Quote Teckos You may want to rethink that last post of yours. We know you manage 7 pilots yourself. I for one am generously assuming you are paying for 1 real life subscription. I am generous that way. Otherwise. Nice straw men. Its nice to see people play with dolls made of environmentally friendly fibers. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.10 11:19:56 - [419] - Quote Maria Teckos mentioned how many pilots he managed a number of hundred thread posts ago. Teckos You are again restating that the finite resource is real life time. You moved the goal posts in your second to last post (which is a strawman arguments). The infinite account, but for time is an equilibrium equation. So 1 plex per account, not 3. I also always assume the first account is a paid subscription. Afk cloaky camping is established multiple account entitlement. Bravo Sierra is a masked profanity. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:49:12 - [420] - Quote Teckos What you are fail to appreciate is that afk cloaky camping is free for optimizing established players and that afk cloaky camping predominantly targets newer players that rely on ratting and mining to fund their peak time pvp activity. For established players, isk revenue per active account is easily higher than the plex the account costs. Isk revenue scales infinitely for an individual player on Tranquility. It is capped only by real life time. Afk cloaky camping is something to do with excess pilots once time is insufficient to manage all pilots actively. Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation. Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 15:56:27 - [421] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Jerghul wrote: Teckos You fail to appreciate that afk cloaky camping is free for optimizing players, and that afk cloaky camping predominantly targets newer players that rely on ratting and mining to fund their peak time pvp activity. For established players, isk revenue per active account is easily higher than the plex the account costs. Isk revenue scales infinitely for an individual player on Tranquility. It is capped only by real life time. Afk cloaky camping is something to do with excess pilots once time is insufficient to manage all pilots actively. Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation. Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone. It is not free. What does AFK cloaking get in the way of ore, minerals, modules, ISK or any other in game resource? Answer: nothing. Could that character be used to acquire such resources? Yes. Those forgone resources are the opportunity cost. Your argument that I don't have any time to use him for certain things is invalid. People have played with quite a few accounts. I have ratted on 2 accounts at the same time, using 3 accounts at the same time is not a problem. Doing PI on several of my accounts does not take much time beyond the initial set up (which is a sunk cost and thus irrelevant). Station trading is not going to eat up vast swaths of your time unless you are going to sit and monitor your orders and 0.01 all damn day. Invention is also can be done fairly quickly as well. I can usually deliver all the jobs and install 20 more in less than 10 minutes/character. And even if this were true there is still yet another form of opportunity cost. I am taking time to train a character that will be completely and totally unproductive. Time I could have used training characters who are productive. Teckos You are not appreciating that for ESTABLISHED, OPTIMIZING PLAYERS there is not cost to afk cloaky camping. Its done in addition to all the active pilots they have real life time to manage and who in turn are easily able to fund all accounts any ESTABLISHED, OPTIMIZING PLAYER might care to have. Other players can of course afk cloaky camp if they are willing to pay absurd opportunity costs to do it and after they have paid the initial 2 isk skill investment (which is a significant barrier). Bringing us back to: Which is why afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement. Afk cloaky camping is a bad game practice that should be ended without compensation. Just ended. Snap of fingers. Gone. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 17:37:10 - [422] - Quote Wander Why not try demonstrating you grasp forum rules before moving on to more advanced game mechanic functions? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:06:38 - [423] - Quote Wander You may want to try a post without being abusive. I play that game far better than you, but the moderators have instructed us to desist, so I have. Actual game play reasons have been provided earlier in this thread. I understand that I have an excellent memory that gives me some advantage in longer discussions. But you can simply review the thread to refresh points you have forgotten. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:41:44 - [424] - Quote Wander I apologize profusely for so transparently thinking myself the smartest man in the room by far (though to be fair, the competition is not very robust). Cloaks are very OP. I sold 40k nanite repair paste last week. Producing them in null-sec was about as risky as station trading in Jiita. But the thread topic is afk cloaky camping. Which should simply be removed. Perhaps in a manner that does not inconvenience you personally more than slightly. But I could live with you being considerably inconvenienced. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:42:41 - [425] - Quote Teckos I think we simply have to agree that you do not really understand that real life time is the only limiting factor for skilled and experienced players. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:47:59 - [426] - Quote Lugburz wrote: Jerghul wrote: I apologize profusely for so transparently thinking myself the smartest man in the room by far (though to be fair, the competition is not very robust). Cloaks are very OP. I sold 40k nanite repair paste last week. Producing them in null-sec was about as risky as station trading in Jiita. But the thread topic is afk cloaky camping. Which should simply be removed. Perhaps in a manner that does not inconvenience you personally more than slightly. But I could live with you being considerably inconvenienced. f*k u jerghul :p i am smart, intelimegent and incredibly good looking, i know cus my mum tells me :p Hey lugz :). Truth be told, I am not very good looking (though I do have a dashing scar running from temple to jawline. Compliments of a snapped trawl wire from my fishing days...those things whip around something terrible:)). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 19:17:58 - [427] - Quote Lugz afk cloaky camping is a problem because it targets newer players (the idiots who actually depend on ratting and mining to fund peak time pew-pew fun); done free of cost by established, optimizing pilots Actual carebears like me want cloaks protected so pesky pilots don't interfere with our rolling in PI and moon goo bling. This is in other words one of my anti elitist prick (as in needle point collateral damage) rampages. You have heard them before in game. Privileges to which they have become accustomed. Screw (as in rotate to tighten or loosen things. for example a lid or a bolt) that :D. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:02:14 - [428] - Quote Afk cloaky camping is dangerous in the wrong way. Its implicitly dangerous. A nuisance thing that only encourages newer players to limit the time they play EvE to peak periods for organized pvp events. You have probably lost out on 100ds of fights due to a third party afk cloaky camping this or that system on your roams. A player that might have fought you does not because of the unquantifiable risk an additional neut or red in that system gives. Its also not dangerous versus the right activity as it does not impact on PI or Moon Goo collection where the actual isk is. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:15:48 - [429] - Quote A solution that was viable for quite some time while afk cloaky camping was more of a marginal thing. Its not so marginal now as hardware requirements are met by an ever growing mass of players (being able to nominally multi-box). Hence the need to end it. I am not adverse to simply adapting various wormhole mechanisms to null-sec and in that way again marginalize afk cloaky camping. But feel it is better to simply address the issue head-on. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:36:28 - [430] - Quote Its an issue. Specifically the AFK bit. Or to put it another way. The cloaky camping risk should be explicit. Someone doing it should be actively looking to blop someone (or otherwise engage). Or otherwise get hunted down for stupidly being afk while in space in null-sec. Hell, I would not mind going afk cloaky campy extreme either: Introduce a cloaky camping drone that is active as long as the controlling pilot is in the same region. Let everyone afk cloaky camp without opportunity cost. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:46:28 - [431] - Quote Talk to the hand Teckos. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:51:53 - [432] - Quote Nullsec is a carebear paradise. Or to put it another way. Have you caught any blockade runners recently? I am not against a dangerous null-sec (you caught the afk cloaky camping drone thought?). I am just against a dangerous null-sec for some like it is now. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:06:00 - [433] - Quote Getting into PI and moon goo is the actual null-sec adaptation for people wanting to earn isk in off-peak times. Ratting and mining is really just for the plebs (aside form some highly optimized players who do it right. But that is again full circle back to the multiple account entitlements in a different form). Lug Yah, lets be part of a sov holding alliance that tells you that today's pvp activity is ratting. I take it you would opt for the afk cloaky camping drones then. So everyone can cloaky camp without cost. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 08:56:35 - [434] - Quote Teckos I would personally chose to jump freighter things to market. But you can fly them in any straw man that rocks your boat. Brokk You are still not impacting at all on PI or moon goo, even with two a month. Optimizing players are immune to interdiction. ============= New suggestion: Afk cloaky drones that duplicate effects and potential of afk cloaky camper, but without hardware or multiple account requirements. Two types: Combat cloaky camping drone with scram and gun. Cyno cloaky camping drone with scram and cyno. Max 5 deployed per pilot. Drones afk cloaky camp unless actively controlled by pilot (who can toggle between pilot and cloaky drones to hot seat 1 at a time per account). I cant wait to hear why this breaks cloaks. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:41:40 - [435] - Quote Morrigan Great. Then we have a suggestion that fixes afk cloaky camping that finally is acceptable to your palate. I eagerly await the wormhole stabilizers that keep wormholes open for the 3 days dictated by citadel destruction time. I somehow feel wormhole dwellers will not fare well against null-sec players on the rampage (its on topic as afk cloaky camping is feasibly effective in wormhole space once the wormholes can be stabilized for several days). Xcom Wormhole space is getting the biggest bell of them all: Lootable citadels. But you are off-target on what makes wormhole space a special kind of snowflake. I listed them earlier in null-sec form. It was carebear heaven (the mechanisms that compensate for no local are extremely potent). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 09:52:27 - [436] - Quote Morrigan Nah, they are on topic for reasons given. Powerful mechanisms in wh space weaken implicit threat, weaken those mechanisms and implicit threat suddenly becomes quite tangible. Its incidentally an anti-elitist position. Wormhole dwellers are not special snowflakes (they are pretty much the same as anyone in Eve), but the mechanisms that protect them from implicit threat are special indeed. It is relevant because it demonstrably shows what can weaken or strengthen implicit threats. The "very good reasons" Fozie was talking about. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:10:41 - [437] - Quote Morrigan I disagree. It is however against rules to attempt to adjudicate forum rules. That is an exclusive moderator domain. Report posts you have issues with. Your understanding of what is or is not in keeping with forum rules is of supreme disinterest. Feel free to do your own study on why mining and ratting is low sec is so incredibly popular. Did you ever get the feeling I am about appeasement? I apologize profusely for conveying that impression and promise to be more abrasively honest in the future. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:36:47 - [438] - Quote Morrigan My position has remained constant. Any issue does of course have many solutions. For as long as you understand the issue and are looking for solutions. This issue is implicit threat projection as an established multiple account entitlement. Its impossible for you to have a reasoned debate on the issue because you are focused on bigotry. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:35:52 - [439] - Quote Brokk Yah, I trust you see how disproportionately different income sources are protected. Moon goo and PI are untouchable in practical terms, and yet people whine on about casual ratting and mining as if those players are risk adverse. Optimizing players multi box to avoid gate camps btw. Which is also entrenched multiple account entitlement fluff. Afk cloaky camping drones is one way to address established privilege. Or in effect allow people to multi box using a single computer, single screen, and single account (by toggling between the active pilot ship and various drones out there that are controlled as if they were ships). Its fine that you like to use your peak time on small roams and gate camps to catch PvE players. But that is not what null-sec Sov is about. But there are lots of ways to fix the implicit threat issue. The monthly stipend Concord is going to start paying pilots is one way of doing it. It diminishes the need to rat and mine. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 12:55:43 - [440] - Quote You are not mistaken, but isk does not accumulate in corporations. Net revenue is passed on to players for various purposes that include limiting the need for real life money to fund multiple accounts. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 16:33:54 - [441] - Quote Teckos No backtracking, buddy. Though I understand it is easy for you to misunderstand things and I certainly get you need to take any victories your mind can manufacture :). Karous We have established there are many final solutions to the established multiple account entitlement that is afk cloaky camping question. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 17:28:07 - [442] - Quote Mags I provide a regular synopsis on my remarkably consistent position. And yah, I get that you don't get social responsibility and global stewardship. Want a "my PC is nuclear powered" sticker? Karous I liked your post. You seemed to need a hug. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 18:15:31 - [443] - Quote Lucky then that this thread is about afk cloaky camping. Feel free to create an in-game balance thread any time you like. Of course hardware requirements are relevant to the topic we are discussing. I don't see "multiple screens and computers are recommended" over in Steam. Which is borderline unethical advertising given that they are recommended if you want to have a proper and widespread edge for afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 18:29:17 - [444] - Quote Fukoshima Joe Yah, those two last posts of yours should probably be zapped. Edit Though I hope not. Threemile island Stan, Chernobyl Bill...I could have a lot of fun with that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 18:48:52 - [445] - Quote Tekos You get that discussing how much ferrogel is produced is almost as off topic as other off topic things you drag into this thread like something a cat brings home, right? Collecting moon goo is best done in a blockade runner. Anyone that knows anything knows this. Its pretty banal stuff. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:48:59 - [446] - Quote Teckos I would respond in length to the hilarious thought of taking freighters on null sec moon goo roams. But alas, that would be almost as hopelessly off-topic as your next to last post. Let it simply be noted that I was not speaking about the transportation of final product which is generally be done in an outpost system for easy station access. You can do the crazily dangerous mad dash* from station to POS forcefield in anything you like. But nice straw man. Again. Note that this is not irony (which is the same as goldy and bronzy except made out of iron). It is that other thing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."* -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 09:45:47 - [447] - Quote Morrigan Xcom is talking about afk cloaked ships where players might be ATK at least several times a week you mean. The implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect afk cloaky camping has depends on the pilot being ATK several times a week and preferably once a day after downtime. AFK cloaky camping's implicit threat decreases if dscan could only be done uncloaked. A cautious pilot would catch the decloaked dscanning ship on dscan. The alternative would be the time consuming effort of inspecting anons individually while cloaked. Which in turn would decrease the frequency of afk cloaky campers becoming ATK and thus reduce the implicit threat afk cloaky camping represents. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 10:22:31 - [448] - Quote Morrigan Any imaginary nerf to scouts is all in the players' minds. There is for example no problem speed tanking while dscanning. It merely is an issue for those not wanting to appear on dscan while dscanning. Ie afk cloaky campers that do not want it known they are on their twice weekly ATK "perhaps I will pvp, perhaps I will not, it all depends on what it feels like in my soft and delicate typing fingers" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 14:07:56 - [449] - Quote Karous The counter to afk cloaks are player controlled gates, and dramatically buffed and affordable cyno inhibitors. Some, but not all of the "afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wh space. There are very good reasons for that" (Fozie). So sure, give null sec Sov controlled gates and powerful/affordable cyno inhibitors to curb afk cloaky camping impact. That is fine with me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 14:42:13 - [450] - Quote Karous I think you need another hug. Huggles It was not my idea. It was Fozie. "The very good reasons" afk cloaky camping is not a problem in wormhole space. Player control of gates and free cyno inhibitors are two of those reasons. Funny that you think they are brokenly OP. Funny in an hilarious way. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 14:53:31 - [451] - Quote Teckos Strawman. Again. Grown men should not play with dolls as much as you do. Its not healthy. Deactivate cloak to activate dscan was what I meant. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 15:43:58 - [452] - Quote Xcom Going afk in space is worse than a bad mechanic. It is an established multiple account entitlement. So people defend it beak and claw, tooth and nail, adhom and straw man. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 15:49:46 - [453] - Quote Morrigan Yah, wormhole mechanics are quite the special snowflakes. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 16:18:03 - [454] - Quote Morrigan Cake = predictable gate use and cynos Eating it too = afk capable cloaks " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 16:54:41 - [455] - Quote Wander Or give pilots a base income from Concord each month Or require active piloting for cloaks to remain online Or give null sec powerful and affordable cyno inhibitors Or give null sec Sov control of gates Or remove the multiple account and hardware requirements for afk cloaky camping Or all of the above. Which is what I am suggesting to fix afk cloaky camping. There are other minor tweaks that can be done of course. I should add them to my list. Or give all anoms a scan down requirement Or give null sec asteroid belts random placement set each day and a scan down requirement Or give rats more omni damage and omni damage resists Or make rats more powerful Or allow for sovholder-rat local system alliances Or all of the above. To fix afk cloaky camping even more. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 18:07:39 - [456] - Quote Karous "if you actually had control of your in gates" Exactly. Though not in the way you were thinking. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 18:37:46 - [457] - Quote Kaarous Or it could be you that are playing the wrong game. The only thing that is constant in EvE is change every 6 weeks. "Challenging old assumptions....delightful results" You heard the man. Delightful results :). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:00:23 - [458] - Quote Karous I am sure the Developers are giving the thought of making EvE seem completely depopulated all the consideration the thought merits. You need another hug. Huggles " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:08:05 - [459] - Quote They seem empty quite frankly. I did a ton of frostline sites in one not too long ago. Do you really need me to direct you to "ZOMG wormhole space is dying. Help us please CCP" threads? I think you may have taken unsub threats from one of those threads. They are all the rage in certain corners of space. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.14 23:04:46 - [460] - Quote From Not CCP Golden Rules Quote: Consent to PvP You consent to PvP when you click "undock". You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea. In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. *Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.* /thread[/quote] Point taken? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.15 13:48:11 - [461] - Quote Morrigan Lets apply reciprocity to that ignorance is bliss theory of yours. The module that can find cloaked ships should not be visible to the target. Because then he will not know it is there. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.15 13:56:54 - [462] - Quote No need for what exactly? To be afk, to use a cloak, or to camp? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.15 18:23:30 - [463] - Quote Mike The fundamental problem with the "prey profession" is that no one really does it. Its done 13% of logons. Or about as often as male exotic dancers offer laptop (intended) dances. The handwave@fundamental imbalance is invalid. PvP as an activity is as popular as eating yellow snow. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 6	Posted - 2016.01.15 19:25:05 - [464] - Quote I saw what you did there. You want a cloaky, flyable, full feature citadel for less than 50 million isk as compensation for any nerf to afk cloaky camping. You win EvE, bro. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 15:44:32 - [465] - Quote Teckos Changing cloak mechanics is to limit the effects of afk cloaky camping on a number of players far larger than those that habitually use cloaked ships. You phrased the problem incorrectly. Perhaps introduce a mechanism in mining and ratting that will deactivate without active player intervention? Oh wait. There already are such mechanisms... And the reason that cloaks should not have a similar mechanism? Edit Its like you are trolling yourself sometimes buddy. You should phrase your examples with much greater care. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 17:24:11 - [466] - Quote Kaarous It may not in fact be completely unacceptable. Null-sec mining and ratting is a pretty marginal thing that may need a buff. I think a mechanism that causes people to think "meh", then log off is a bad mechanism. But prefer the workaround a monthly stipend from Concord. It lessens the off-peak need to rat/mine to fund peak time pvp activity. So may in fact lead to a greater pvp emphasis in offpeak times (roam instead of rat). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 17:31:56 - [467] - Quote Nothing is safe when undocked anywhere in EvE except afk cloaky camping (even ATK cloaked camping has an implicit risk of misguided pvp). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 18:00:28 - [468] - Quote No, you are wrong. And you need a hug: Huggles. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 18:36:10 - [469] - Quote Karous Nothing is safe in EvE undocked save AFK cloaky camping. Even ATK cloaky camping has some implicit risk. Morrigan Exactly the presentation I am referring to. He posted it as a devblog too, so you can review the hardcopy if you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 18:58:29 - [470] - Quote Karous Repeating yourself does not make you any less wrong. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.16 22:12:48 - [471] - Quote Summer of Sov focused heavily on upgrading mining and ratting in null sec. For good reason. Bounties for combat missions are ~10 times the mission rewards. High sec and low sec combat anoms. High sec and low sec belt rats. The limiting factor to high sec anom running is site availability amazingly. Not enough sites for the players that want to run them. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.17 10:54:26 - [472] - Quote Karous I am still waiting for proof for your ludicrous claims, but in the mean time, here is a hug: Huggles Teckos Something in the region 1/3 of isk brought into game is through null sec bounties. But lets be systematic. You are not disputing that mining in null-sec in incredibly marginal. So even in your mind the statement would be half-right. So lets say that ratting in nullsec contributes to increasing EvE's 883 000 000 000 000 M4 by say 350 000 000 000 per day. Or compare that 350 billion to 14 trillion goods traded each day. Or compare it to the 350 billion to the 2.3 trillion final goods produced each day. Or compare 350 billion to that 900 billion goods destroyed every day. Yah, null-sec ratting is pretty marginal and could use any buff nerfing afk cloaky camping gives. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.17 14:15:01 - [473] - Quote I am awaiting proof on the ludicrous and pathological claims that afk cloaky campers die, and that I claim cloaks in general are invincible. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 16:22:01 - [474] - Quote Mags You are still not grasping implicit threat. Except when Mike says it should be possible to scan down cloaked ships. That implicit threat you seem to understand really well. A force in being, implicit threat, a pretty big psychological effect is a big thing. RL? The Tirpitz had filled its bow with cement. Pumped in a few 1000 tons of water to counterbalance flooding, Its Doris turret was knocked out of its fitting... And remained a sufficient force in being, implicit threat, pretty big psychological effect to tie down 1/3rd of the Royal Navy on the off-chance it might sortie and attack a convoy. The Royal navy really should have learned to just HTFU. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 19:08:58 - [475] - Quote Karous Yah, like I said. The Royal Navy of wwii needed to HTFU. Or to remain on topic: Delete AFK CLOAKY CAMPING. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 20:52:29 - [476] - Quote Morrigan Are you suggesting mandatory gate jumping be introduced to balance afk cloaky camping? Since catching them in transit does after all require transit. Works for me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.18 21:49:30 - [477] - Quote Logging on seems to be the by far most common way for an afk cloaky camper to enter a system. Perhaps you should stop whining that you find people that find afk cloaky campers annoying annoying and HTFU a bit yourself. No end to the complaints you raise about people who dislike afk cloaky camping. Maybe harden up a bit and learn to deal with it? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.19 04:26:00 - [478] - Quote Morrigan No mechanism to force an afk cloaky camper to do anything save log on once a day. Cidadel The pretty big psychological effect is an acknowledged issues the devs are looking into. Refighting lost battles is really not something you should do in null-sec. Though fine for high sec I suppose. Null-sec is about sov, corp and alliance wars. So that is what I do there. Afk cloaky camping is fine in wormhole space where there is nothing else to do except spend peak time forming up to run sites anyway. Null sec has more meaningful content and afk cloaky camping is an irritating bug in the game mechanic that detracts from purpose. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.20 23:03:04 - [479] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: Jerghul wrote: Cidadel The pretty big psychological effect is an acknowledged issues the devs are looking into. Refighting lost battles is really not something you should do in null-sec. Though fine for high sec I suppose. Null-sec is about sov, corp and alliance wars. So that is what I do there. Afk cloaky camping is fine in wormhole space where there is nothing else to do except spend peak time forming up to run sites anyway. Null sec has more meaningful content and afk cloaky camping is an irritating bug in the game mechanic that detracts from purpose. What? Since when is that what WH space is about? Do you play the same game I do? Fighting battles to defend your space trumps any other activity in null. That comes with the territory of owning space. If you see someone not blue in intel within 10 systems of yourself, there's no excuse to not reship to PvP and fleet up. Since when is wh space called null-sec? And to answer your question. I am pretty sure I am not playing the same game you are. Eve being a universe that can be understood at many levels. I am quite accepting of people understanding it at their own pace. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.21 16:25:14 - [480] - Quote Morrigan We will see how popular carrier ratting is when remote repping is gone. Its not working as intended of the focus of null sec sov becomes peak time PvE. I get that that is how wormhole space works for the like 4 players and the 10 000 exotic dancers that hang out there. But it really is not scalable to a portion of space with much more important things than PvE are going down. Afk cloaky campers there are a game destroying nuisance where countermeasures rotate around allocating peak time to PvE and leaving space inactive in off-peak times. So lets make some player controlled gates and affordable cyno ihibitors and never care again. Lets do that like countless players have suggested. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.21 18:41:05 - [481] - Quote Wander 90%. The only way that could be true is if you afk hunt and afk pvp a lot. Fixing afk cloaky camping is a great idea. Suggestions that oppose it suck. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.21 23:08:49 - [482] - Quote Morrigan afk cloaky camping is a null-sec problem because it detracts from the purpose of null-sec. Places with no point like wormhole space and low sec can of course spend their peak time doing PvE. Not like there is much else going on really unless you are part of the 1% that does incursions (low sec ish). There are tons of ways to fix the null sec problem of course. Just tons of ways. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.01.22 02:52:16 - [483] - Quote Or Mike can show far more persistence than getting whelped every day on the undock requires to continue to argue his point over 100ds of posts. At some point, most of us will understand he really thinks the mechanism is broken. It would be nice if people could just HTFU and accept a pet mechanism of theirs is going to die. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.10.10 01:15:48 - [484] - Quote There are non-intrusive solution to the enduring afk element. The small booster charges solution for various mining vessels is one way to go. A cloaked vessel can carry cheap, player built charges for the cloak with an ammo capacity sufficient for 5 hours of uninterrupted cloakiness. That would be more than enough of a nerf in my opinion. All it means is a player has to monitor the cloaky vessel once in a while and restock on charges once in a great while. I do realize it impacts on some 0-effort playing styles. But a certain minimum level of activity should be required in order to implicitly threaten space activity in any given system. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.10.10 09:01:59 - [485] - Quote Wander I am not seeing the "screwing over" the active cloak users (I spend more than 75% of my time actively using a cloak in null-sec). The length of this thread demonstrates there are issues. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.10.10 11:17:57 - [486] - Quote Thank you for sharing your opinion Wander. You have every right to have as many of those as you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.10.10 12:38:42 - [487] - Quote Wander Perhaps you should desist in ad-hominems if you are concerned about ISD. I did not like to report you last time, but I will do so again if required. Frequent cool-off periods seemed to do you good. Close to 7000 posts. Revolving around afk cloaky camping and its effect on player created content in the game. I think the link solution is promising. Ongrid if you want to impact. Using charges to do so. A similar solution for cloaking is reasonable (5 hour ammo capacity. Affordable and widely available ammunition that takes up very little M3). This is not a bad idea. Which I think you know at some level. Hence making it about people, not about the ideas presented. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 7	Posted - 2016.10.10 13:27:13 - [488] - Quote Again, thank you for your opinion. I do however think you are misrepresenting the vast majority of posters on this topic. Most of us just want content, bro. Would you care to expound on how a 5 hour ammunition capacity cloak with affordable, low M3 volume charges impacts at all on active gameplay? I wait with bated breath. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.10 13:43:41 - [489] - Quote Yah, I frequent wormholes a couple times a week. Its the safest way to get to high sec. The idea was to reload the cloak once the 5 hours worth of charges loaded in the cloak are used. I dont care if you can carry 6 months worth of charges in your cargo hold. The only criteria is that you have to reload the cloak at least once every 5 hours. Its a pretty low threshold suggestion that adresses only the afk component of afk cloaky camping. The ship has to be actively managed at least every once in a while. That is all. Content meaning many things. Including not being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky campers closing up systems so we cannot catch ratters when we roam through afk cloaky camped systems (I do not really think cloaky campers make space less safe. They just make space less used). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.10 17:41:00 - [490] - Quote Or you could just switch to the cloaky camper desktop every 5 hours and reload the cloak charges to keep your "counter to local" active. For an example of how a "counter to local" would still exist. Its not exactly a very strenuous criteria. Though I kind of prefer small gang roams as a "counter to local" myself. Shot gun for the win....if not for the rooster-blocking afk cloaky campers keeping our would be victims docked up that is. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.10 18:22:28 - [491] - Quote They know the afk cloaky camper has to be active at least once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute. Nothing is broken. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.11 00:50:48 - [492] - Quote Helper Baltecs point is that afk cloaky campers are white noise that players become accustomed to and assume are always afk. So they ignore them. Then the afk cloaky camper can effectively do his weekly blops on whatever unsuspecting ratters had been ignoring him for so long. I do not agree with that point at all for a number of reasons. But I accepted the argument at its face value because he is in error. Baltec You are wrong. As I demonstrated with a simple time analysis. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.11 11:30:23 - [493] - Quote It means they know it is active at least once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute. As opposed to them knowing it is active at least once a every 24 hours for at least a fraction of a minute. It does not break anything. It does however dramatically increase the chance of human error. An afk cloaky camper would have to be somewhat skilled to avoid getting caught every now and then when he or she is at the pub longer than planned and pass the 5 hour time limit. The horrors of implicit counterplay. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.11 19:49:32 - [494] - Quote Being active once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute does not entail that there must be available targets you are compelled to attack simply because you had to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop to reload ammo charges. There is no connection between reloading charges and attacking ratting ships. There are incidentally many other "counters to local". " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 05:01:16 - [495] - Quote Teckos The idea is good. Nor are the ships gimped in any meaningful way. It is steamlined with link bursts ammunition being introduced in november. But thank you for sharing your opinion. It's always nice to see you use adjectives and adverbs and stuff. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 11:33:27 - [496] - Quote Quote: You are still destroying the only counter to local, people will not rat with a red in system under your plan because they will always assume they are active simply because there is a 5 hour timer. Equally you have to be at your computer in order top cloak so no more week long AFK camping because it is impossible, nobody is going to alarm clock and run back home from work to camp a system to get kills. Its not the "only counter to local", nor will it destroy ratting (which is what you are saying). Nor do you have to set your alarm clock. When tired; log-off and go to bed. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 12:59:45 - [497] - Quote Anything that can catch a ratting ship is a "counter to local" . It seemed you were suggesting that if ratters assumed afk-players were online at least every 5 hours, they would stop ratting. It is not safe to rat if local is empty. Once you undock your ship you are vulnerable to unsolicited pvp. In its many forms. Empty local means among other things that roaming gangs have a good shot at shotgunning a system and catching ratters. Which is a lot harder to do with afk cloaky campers rooster-blocking systems. If you want to rooster-block players actively seeking pvp, then at least have to common courtesy to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop once every 5 hours :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 16:41:48 - [498] - Quote Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively. So you are claiming 5 hour ammunition capacity will kill ratting. So the "counter to local" remains intact by your own words. A ratter is safe until he is caught. Which can happen fast. Faster and more often in fact if afk cloaky campers were not rooster blocking other options. Perhaps you should create a thread on the pros and cons of free intel. Its a bit off topic frankly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 20:12:37 - [499] - Quote Sonya Human error is a powerful content creator. Things go wrong and ratters get caught.. Still, I was not suggesting getting rid of afk cloaky camping. I am championing a 5 hour ammunition capacity charge system for the cloaking device. Trild Yepp, high player turnover and poor retainment is a matter of record. Most of the customers that really disliked content removal by afk-cloaky campers have voted with their wallets and left the game. Teckos Human error is a part of the game. Which is why scripts and automatic responses are illegal. Humans are inattentive and ratters get caught any number of ways. If anything, afk cloaky campers keep them safer by encouraging them to stay docked. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.12 20:15:56 - [500] - Quote Just be happy I am not suggesting a "cloak fatigue" system that would harmonize with jump fatigue (introduced to remove a different content destroyer) :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 05:32:15 - [501] - Quote Teckos Incorrect, but thank you for sharing your opinion. Sonya akf cloaky camping certainly does nuke many other playing styles. The issues you mentioned seemed pretty marginal if using a command burst approach to cloak charges as I suggested. Anyway, something will need to be done with the advent of alpha clones. My suggestion is not very intrusive. CCP can nerf afk-cloaky camping far more than that (see jump fatigue for an example of a proper nerf hammer). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 10:46:56 - [502] - Quote Local is countered if the ratter is caught. By definition. Afk-cloaky camping does not meet that definition and is thus not a counter to local. Ratting has been killed if ratting ships never undock. Which you claim is the effect of a cloak charge. The only thing a ratter knows is that an afk-cloaky camper now has to actively recharge his or her cloak once every 5 hours if the cloak is to function. Thus, ratting ships do not know if the player with the cloaked ship is afk or not. It has been successfully argued here that afk cloaky camping is done to generate 0-effort kills at the convenience of the afk cloaky camping player. That local in null-sec need counters is a completely different discussion deserving of its own thread. Perhaps. There probably are such threads at the bottom of the board somewhere. Afk cloaking camping did serve an important purpose. It helped increase the Eve server player count. This will no longer be needed with the advent of alpha clones. Winter is coming, bro. Be less entrenched and try to find a low impact change you can live with. Do you really want CCP to come up with the equivalent of a cloak fatigue timer? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:10:16 - [503] - Quote Baltec "The counter to local" is to act too quickly for a player to react to the information he has. Be it a small gang roam, or a with a cyno and a web from a normally afk cloaky camper. There is no flaw to my logic. It makes no inherent difference if an afk-cloaky camper is active once a day, or active once every 5 hours. Its not the act of maximising a desk top that determines if a afk cloaky comper will seek combat. I don't actually consider afk cloaky camping derived combat to be pvp. The variables are controlled too rigidly by the afk cloaky camper for it to be much more than the pvp equivalent of a super blop dropping on whatever ratting carrier they feel like blooping. We saw what happened to the blops. Enhancing the number of players on the server is the only reason afk cloaky camping is still a thing. And that justification is gone with the next update. Pech You are incorrect, but thank you for sharing your opinion. Sonya Sure intel can work. And often does. And often does not. Human error is a powerful content creator. If ships actually undock. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 21:53:47 - [504] - Quote Sonya Yes, that is pretty much exactly what I am saying. Human error is part of the game and people do make mistakes. This is one of the two factual downside to introducing a mechanism where a cloak has to be reloaded every 5 hours to function. A afk cloaky camper may have every intention of returning to his computer within a 5 hour timeframe, but will occassionally not do so. Opening a window of vulnerability where the now uncloaked ship might be scanned down and caught unless skillfully positioned or fitted. Play and counter play based on human error as a content provider. What is not to love? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 22:11:56 - [505] - Quote Baltec Ships warp away quite often when reds jump into system. But not always. From a roaming perspective afk cloaky campers keeping targets docked and safe is a much more fine meshed safety net than the opportunities human error would otherwise have created by increasing the volume of ships in space. Each indiviual ship representing a possibility of someone screwing up and getting caught. You are rooster blocking us, bro. And by rooster blocking I mean the other word for a male chicken. At least have the common decency to have that desktop active every 5 hours when you do it. The whole point of afk cloaky camping is that people have to assume you are active until they tire of acting on that assumption. it makes no difference if you have to momentarily have that desktop active once a day, or once every 5 hours. People will assume you are active until they tire of it under both conditions. Excessive control of variables in afk cloaky camping has much more in common with pve than it does pvp. Sorry if that fact hurts your feelings. The only reason indefinately sustainable afk cloaky camping exists is because afk cloaky campers help keep server numbers up. A factor no longer relevant after alpha clones are introduced. Winter is coming bro. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 22:55:19 - [506] - Quote Sonya Human error is the premier counter to local. Without human error, no one would get caught ratting at all. Human error is the only way ratters get caught period. Any non-blue in system is a threat that it is an error to ignore. This thread is full of helpful suggestions on what ratters can do to eliminate human errors that occur in an afk cloaky camping environment. The in game counter to local is catching ratters that make mistakes. The 5 hour limit on afk cloaky camping before reload is in fact an enhanced counter to local. It introduces to possibility of human error for afk cloaked ships too. They might get scanned down occasionally if the owner fails to return to his computer. I do not think you are fully appreciating that afk cloaky camper make null-sec safer by lowering the number of undocked ships in the environment. Players have to undock to make mistakes. I should underline that I do not want afk cloaky camping to go away. I simply want to reduce the maximum time a player can be afk cloaky camp from 24 hours to 5 hours by specifically targetting the afk portion. Be at the desktop once every 5 hours or your cloak will stop working. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.13 23:41:13 - [507] - Quote Baltec Human error, bro. Let me walk you though it. You say you have to camp for a week until players tire of assuming you are active. Then you can catch a single ratter. Then another week passes, then you catch another one. In both those weeks, there are no ships to catch on roams because you have caused them all to dock up. If you (and your brothers and sisters afk camping innumerable systems) had not been there, then ships would be undocked and busy ratting. Most would warp off when a red spike turns up in local, but not all. And a roam can cover scores of systems in a typical 2 hour run. You are in other words keeping ratters safe by keeping them docked up. Roams still kill more ratters and miners than afk cloaky campers do. But that is simply because afk-cloaky campers have not fully saturated all systems. So roams can catch ratters in systems not rendered inactive by the afk. Surely you can see that a mechanism that breds inactivity is slated for termination. The only cause for keeping it was to keep server numbers from plummeting. And that function is not required after alpha clones are introduced. A 5 hour cloak charge capacity is the least intrusive adjustment I can think of. CCP will probably opt for something more rigerous. But at least you can't say I did not try. Which is more than you can say about many. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 8	Posted - 2016.10.14 04:13:51 - [508] - Quote Sonya You are incorrect in your conclusion. Human error as a premier null-sec content provider dictates that cloaks should have ammunition charges for players to screw up occassionally. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 9	Posted - 2016.10.17 11:25:23 - [509] - Quote Baltec Catching ratting ships is the only counter to local. Which afk cloaky campers cannot do by defintion. The only raison etre for safe and sustained afk anything is to enhance player numbers on the server. And that era ends on November 8th. Ratpack You flatter me. Though I would suggest sticking to the matter at hand, no matter how interesting your opinions on forum personalities. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 9	Posted - 2016.10.17 17:20:09 - [510] - Quote Baltec Thank you for again sharing your opinion! Get into a t1 frigate, fly off into deep space in a system and counter local perpetually. You dont need a cloak to do "your only counter to local" The raison etre for safe and perpetually sustainable afk anything mechanisms is to buff the number of people (technically accounts) on servers. No longer desirable after 8. of November. So can be removed. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.17 23:04:35 - [511] - Quote Ratpack Its not about you, bro. Mechanisms exist for reasons. Some of them are content side, others are business model side. Afk cloaky camping is a business side mechanism. Multi-boxing had the same kind of business side justification for existing. And the server population took a brutal hit when anti-multiboxing enforcement was geared up to support the Eula. Due caution is obviously advised in any area that would impact on the number of accounts active at any time (and you can say what you want about afk lifestyles. The afflicted accounts tend to spend a lot of time on the server. Seeing as they have a 0 real life time investment by definition). The raison etre for keeping perpetually enduring afk anything is server population based. Or a business side issue. The issue has been resolved by a change in the business model that will be introduced on the 8th of November. Enter apha clones. Exit afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.17 23:47:48 - [512] - Quote Ratpack Thank you for sharing your opinion The issue has resolved by a change in the business model. Enter alpha clones. Exit afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 06:40:19 - [513] - Quote Ratpack Not at all. Spokespersons have signed NDAs. baltec fitting a t-1 frigate to be uncatchable even if scanned down is trivial. Player motivation for using afk cloaky camping is irrelevant, though obviously they use it to generate 0 effort kills at their convenience. Else they would be countering local in high sec. Brokk I think it fine in addition to what I am suggesting. Play and counter play generates content. Not as much as creating human error opportunities does. But content is content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 09:07:13 - [514] - Quote Ratpack Its actually called an ad-hominen. But don't sweat it. Sarcasm is hard to master. Sensor Arrays that have an opportunity cost greater than ship module sized are disproportionate and would function poorly. So the array would simply amount to some form of ship fitted decloaking device with certain limitations. Which seems to me a bit heavy handed an approach. As to removing local. Remember if you will that in wh space, the compensation for lack of local is the ability to close gates. For an inkling of the scale of compensating measures that would be on the table if local is to be limited in null-sec. Also a bad idea. Cheap, low volume (m3) cloak charges with infrequent reloading needs (once ever 5 hours) is the least intrusive measure CCP can make. Ideally of a type similar to link bursts being introduced in November. Standarization being the friend of all learning curves. In sum. Shotgun tactics by small gangs give sufficient attrition in null-sec if afk cloaky camping is nerfed. The biweekly kills at the afk cloaky campers convenience will simply have to be nerfed. The adverse effects of keeping ratting and mining ships docked up is too detrimental to small gangs that would otherwise be catching some of them. Human error is a great content provider. If we just allow for mechanisms that let human error take place. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 10:16:02 - [515] - Quote Baltec To do that you have to be cap stable. Then mwd off into deep space until hell freezes over (aka server downtime). Afk anything is by definition 0-effort. You were arguing afk cloaky camping is the only counter to local. Not only is it not the only counter to local, it is also not a counter to local. Hence its non-use in high sec. Also. Concord retaliates, it does not protect. As the ganked know. Ratpack The binary part is caused by afk cloaky camping. Players are docked due to neut in system until they become habituated and one of them culled bi-weekly at the convenience of the afk cloaked player. This means that ships are unavailable to be killed in other ways except in the small habitualized windows that occur infrequently. This makes small gang roams a lot less effective than they otherwise would be. Human error can give a high volume of kills if potential targets are actually undocked. Local is also important for small gangs. The kills are generated by processing a large number of systems as fast as possible. There is no time to shotgun systems on the offchance someone might be in the system. If the system is empty, then the small gang needs to know that immediately so they can move on without deploying shotgun and wasting time. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 11:20:13 - [516] - Quote Baltec I think it a bit off-topic to explain to you how speed tanking makes it almost impossible to catch a ship by probbing it down. Suffice to say that you are incorrect. afk cloaky camping is 0-effort by definition. An opportunity cost is a different matter. Which might help you grasp the opportunity cost afk cloaky campers inflict on others. Your one character opportunity cost inflicts a disproportionate opportunity cost on potentially endless other players who must stay docked unless they are willing to make a mistake and undock. If a counter to local does not work where local exists, then it is not a counter to local. Afk cloaky camping It may be percieved as a counter to something else (for example unreasonable isk/hour expectations), but that is an issue that would need to be discussed on its own basis. The distinction between concord keeping people safe and concord retaliating is vitally important to understand. Though off-topic in this thread of course. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 11:48:06 - [517] - Quote Baltec You certainly have the right to your opinions. Feel free to have as many of them as you like. You remain incorrect in your pot's musings. But I will defend with my life your right to be wrong. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 12:13:51 - [518] - Quote Baltec I am sure that is one of your opinions. Feel free to generate as many of those as you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 16:02:44 - [519] - Quote Ratpack Doubtless the reopening closed gates counter-play would be part of any removal of local discussion. But that is of course a discussion for a different thread. A thread involving entosis links no doubt. Local turns off along with a gate in a system when you entosis it (allowing for entry by cyno, log-off trap relogging, or other gates). For an example of the measure of magnitude you are looking at when wanting to remove local. As pointed out repeatedly, afk cloaky camping is not a counter to local. If there had been, then you would see it done in high sec. Afk cloaky camping may be percieved as a counter to something else (for example a counter to extreme isk/hr expectations). And in system xx-yy3, 0 rats died. Ships docked is a huge problem! We can randomly cite anectdotal evidence to the cows come home if you like. Hell, I can even use dotlan next time if you like. Though invented systems give anectdotal evidence all the weight it deserves. It remains true that small gangs need undocked ships to shotgun. Afk cloaky campers rooster-block the effectiveness of shotgun tactics by keeping ships docked and seriously degrading target density. Human error is a premier content provider. But only if ships are undocked. Re irony meter: That which is broken cannot break. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 16:19:47 - [520] - Quote Sonya No problem at all making all kinds of hoops for people to jump through in order to close gates in null-sec too to create an equivalent degree of difficulty and advantage. Gate closure capability simply represents the order of magnitude of compensation linked to removing local. The protection is not physical access per se btw. It is the unpredictability of physical access (and egress) that follows from player control of gate closures and the radom spawn pattern of most wormholes. Any wh community would be stomped from here to tuesday if reliable access to their particular hole from a set point in 0 sec was reliably tracable. Incidentally. Use mwd if you are having trouble bulking up ships to collapse gates effectively. But my point remains that changes to cloaks should be as least intrusive as possible. Low volume charges for cloaks with 5 hour charge capacity is as low intrusive as I can design. Given that the raison etre for afk cloaky camping mechanism ends with the introduction of alpha clones. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 16:48:39 - [521] - Quote Sonya Today I learned you think afk anything can light cynos. Wow. Just wow. See what I did there? ;-) Ratpack I go through wh space a couple times a week. Times I have seen wh gate camps = 0. Anectdotal evidence is just great fun. I am complaining about afk cloaky campers on behalf of small null sec roamers. The afk cloaky campers are rooster blocking us, bro. Don't be a rooster-blocker, mkay? Edit So you finally accept that afk cloaky camping is not a counter to local. It would be used in high sec if it had been a counter to local. So perhaps drop the mantra and formulate clearly what you think it is a counter to. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 16:54:01 - [522] - Quote Or we can just remove afk cloaky camping since it does not do anything. Yay. Thread resolved! " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:09:45 - [523] - Quote Sonya Perhaps because both of us know afk cloaky camping has a profound effect on game? Baltec Do you need help fitting a t1 frigate? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:22:58 - [524] - Quote baltec Would it be fair to say that afk cloaky camping habituates players into eventually making a mistake (undocking to rat in a system containing at least one hostile ship)? It boils down to the line I fed you: Afk cloaky camping is ultimately a counter to high isk/tick expectations using highly optimized ratting ships without the perception of risk (from the user perpective there is no risk of losing the ratting ship). Edit You belong to PL. Ask one of your alliance bros for a good speed tanked t1 frigate fit. One of them must know. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:28:01 - [525] - Quote Its not a counter to local. Otherwise it would be used in high sec. Where it is not used. Hence it is a counter to something else that you seem to have huge difficulty formulating. Edit Afk cloaky camping certainly is a counter to small gang roams. You keep our targets docked up bro. Far more effectively than any alliance warning system can. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:32:27 - [526] - Quote Ratpack Maybe ratpack needs to go to sarcasm school. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:33:42 - [527] - Quote If it does not work in high sec local, then it is not a counter to local. This is not exactly rocket science. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 17:44:26 - [528] - Quote Ratpack There we go. Yes, afk cloaky campers do indeed represent chaff in null-sec local. Thank you. The chaff does two things: 1. It discourages activity by keeping players docked up. 2. It habituates player into acting as if an unsafe environment is safer than it is. The problem is that step 2. is incredibly time consuming. Recent afk cloaky campers in this thread mention weeks of habituation time before making a kill is viable. This amounts to content removal. Afk cloaky campers are rooster blocking small gang roams that rely on the combination of high target density + human error to get kills. My suggestion (cloaks aligned to the new command burst system. 5 hour charge capacity for the cloaking module) allows for sustained, but not indefinate afk cloaky camping, while introducing an element of human error to afk cloaky camping operation. Doing this would increase content in a number of ways with very little in the way of intrusive impact on the afk cloaky camper life-style. I would run with this if I were you. The raison etre of afk anything is gone with the introduction of alpha clones. Server numbers no longer need the active player number buff afk anything represents. Change is coming and this suggestion is the most painless of many imaginable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 18:13:47 - [529] - Quote Baltec I was actually going to suggest you check out your alliance fleetops for t1 frigate fits. Use your alliance resources. PL is there to help you. You are incorrect in your claim on afk cloaky campers. Afk cloaky campers camp systems that are used for PVE. That is the only discernable criteria. The act of keeping ratting ships docked rooster block small gang roams. Roams that cover a tremendous number of systems over the course of a typical two hour roam. The only reason CCP had to not fundamentally changed the cloaking mechanism to castrate its use for removing content is to keep server numbers buffed. That reason is gone, a cloak nerf is coming. Ratpack Small gangs care that afk cloaky campers keep their targets docked up. Step two is because of afk cloaky camping. Your suggestion that this can be resolved by removing local is incredibly intrusive and would need trigger all kinds of compensatory measures including player ability to manipulate gates. I mention this as an example of the order of magnitude to the intrusive changes you seem to support. I would suggest you instead go to wormholes that seem to have most of the functionality you desire. edit A counter to local is a counter to local. If it does not work in high sec, then it counters something else. Not local. The other ratpack fellow seemed to get that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.18 18:45:10 - [530] - Quote Ratpack High target density + human error = kills. Why not put 300 ratting ships out in the multitude of systems that a 2 hour roam crosses through. Then define "quite rare" any way you like and tell me how many kills the small gang roam would get if not for the content destroying, rooster blocking afk cloaky campers. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 05:06:33 - [531] - Quote Ratpack Fair enough. I get that you don't want to quantify how badly afk cloaky campers hurt content. Sonya I get that you are confused. My heartfelt best wishes for your speedy recovery. Baltec Ah, yes. Destroying content because solo. The tragedy of the Commons in a nutshell. Except afk cloaky camping is not really solo is it? It's afk. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 10:28:41 - [532] - Quote Baltec "feel free to roam around in a solo ship" is what you said. Something that cannot be done afk as afk removes a human actor from the equation by definition. Frankly, I respect your right to hold as many opinions as you like. I truly do. The issue regarding afk cloaky camping remains one of pisspoor time management. Destroying content for weeks to accomodate biweekly single kill events is simply not viable without a business side buffer. The business side buffer is gone with the introduction of alpha-clones. Your services buffing the number of players on server (which is the one thing the afk lifestyle excels at) is not longer required. Thank you for what you did for as long as it was needed. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 14:19:34 - [533] - Quote Baltic You are wrong in every way except using your right to express your opinion. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 14:44:40 - [534] - Quote Ratpack Wow. While I appreciate your honest introspective...perhaps this is not the correct place to share your rich inner life? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 15:25:07 - [535] - Quote Ratpack Back to your old games I see. Reported. The generic tag is actually complimentary. A group of holywood stars went by it. But it does allude to the echo-chamber function this thread often has. Its hard to keep track of a few of your individual tags as the content of your posts are quite identical. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 18:19:02 - [536] - Quote Baltec I asked if you needed help fitting a T1 frigate. I did not offer to actually help you, though I repeatedly did advise that you seek alliance council if you are that interested. I have repeatedly demonstrated that your dogmatic positions are wrong. Usually wrong in both a moral and factual sense. Though sometimes just wrong factually. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 19:01:49 - [537] - Quote Baltec Why not wait with baited breath for that T1 frigate fit. I am sure it will work out for you in the end. QED'd in this thread of course. Dogma is easy enough to disprove. You say something catagorical. I find exceptions. Your dogma is proven incorrect as soon as an exception is found. You might try modifying your position somewhat to avoid that happening in the future. I would enjoy a bit more of a challenge. And au contraire. I do listen (or more correctly; read). It would be inpolite not to give each post the attention it deserves. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 19:37:37 - [538] - Quote Ratpack Peas of a pod... Any T1 frigate that looks like POS trash and can speed tank is fine. Head into deep space and afk until hell freezes over (aka server downtime). Masters in Fisheries Management, bro :). The commons resource this case are ratters. The commons is undocked space. Indeed they have spoken of many things. With my suggestion being by far the least instrusive. Sonya Its not about me, sis. Nor is it about you. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 20:20:18 - [539] - Quote Baltec Your view is symptomatic perhaps of the extreme risk adversion afk cloaky campers share as a common trait. Something is broken unless 100% certain? If the t1 frigate was actually caught on dscan range and someone thought "yay, a t1 frigate. I better probe it down", then the ship would also have to arrange for speed capability able to catch up with the speed tanked frigate (ships warp to the were the frigate was, not where it is when they exit warp). In what paranoid universe is that a likely sequence of events? And even if we were to enter that incredble universe for a moment....then all the t1 frigate pilot has to do is try again the next day. He only needs to get out of dscan range to never be found again (barring completely ludicrous series of events). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 21:20:28 - [540] - Quote Sonya How boring are those wormholes you live in? Surely watching paint dry would give rise to more excitement than a t1 frigate? Suffice to say that a neut in system will not cause much in the way of dscan activity, let alone systematic attempts to bracket accessible portions of the system in dscan range. Nor would a frigate on dscan rouse much in the way of interest even if one did turn up. Actually reshipping to probe it down? lulz. Get a life. A neut in system that loiters for more than it would take to transit gates is generally written off as a insert profanity cloaky camper unless dscanned in gate proximity. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 21:26:03 - [541] - Quote Sonya You have the right to your opinion. And my pity from what I am garnering from the tediousness of the wormhole lifestyle. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.19 21:33:38 - [542] - Quote Baltec Thank you for both those opinions. Feel free to have as many as you like. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 07:58:29 - [543] - Quote Ratpack Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played. I am really starting to get the selection bias in this thread. These discussions must be incredibly stimulating to players who habitually afk cloaky camp. So you guys are here...and non-afk cloaky campers are playing Eve. Its not a bad idea, or any idea at all. Its just an example of what you can do with a t-1 frigate "to counter local" without a cloak. Not that I was ever suggesting no cloaks. I just want cloaks with a 5 hour charge capacity. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 09:26:04 - [544] - Quote Ratpack You are in error, my dear friend. Someone claimed afk-cloaky camping was a counter to local. I disproved that claim by looking at local in high sec. Afk cloaky camping may be a counter to something, but it is not a counter to the existence of local. I suggested a better formulation of the problem baltek thought afk cloaky camping resolved. I am still waiting on that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 10:55:50 - [545] - Quote Baltec The assumption is always that single reds in system are afk cloaky campers. So, yes, you would be randomly probing down something on the off-chance the cloak was not there. This is not an activity non-afk cloaky campers are willing to engage in. This because: Get a life, bro. You have repeatedly been told that afk cloaky camping is not a counter to local as it does not counter local in a universal way. It may be a counter to something else. I urge you to try and clearly formulate what problem you think afk cloaky camping resolves. This aint rocket science, dear friend. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 13:21:44 - [546] - Quote Ratpack You are wrong, my dear friend. A problem anywhere in space needs to be mitigated eventually. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 13:35:49 - [547] - Quote I will restate my line of reasoning. The primary function of null-sec is to provide arenas for pvp content. Pvp content is very expensive, so players have pve content options that are better than in high-sec Afk cloaky camping is problematic because it decreases pvp and pve content However Afk cloaky camping does under certain specific circumstances limit income generation in a desirable way. afk "anything" has played an important role in keeping server player numbers stabilized. This is however no longer needed. It follows That afk cloaky camping effects should be mitigated on a least intrusive measure principle. Conclusion Align cloaking modules with command bursts and introduce a 5 hour charge capacity limit (cloaks must be reloaded every 5 hours). This in my view is sufficient to allow human error as a premier content provider to function much better in null-sec. ======== Its not exactly rocket science, my dear friends. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 15:37:42 - [548] - Quote Vic In those terms, Eve is actually 4 distinct sandboxes with characteristics set by variations in game mechanics. You may gladly hold the opinion that null-sec is not a sandbox designed primarily with pvp in mind. Everyone has the right to an opinion after all. PvP is generally far more expensive that non-PvP. Because pvp tends to cause more losses than non-pvp. There are exceptions. Afk cloaky campers are one of those exceptions (the ability to control variables excessively gives afk cloaky camping derived combat great similarity to pve). Sansha Incursions take place in high, low and null sec. Afk cloaky camping decreases pvp by decreasing available content for other pvp styles to exploit. Ships docked are not vulnerable to pvp. People have to be in space for human error to come into play. The content value of bi-weekly single ship kills pales compared to the loss of content derived from ships staying docked. My issue is being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky camping. It weakens content available to small gang roams excessively. Changes to local in null-sec flounder on my "least intrusive" criteria. The most instrusive change imaginable game can be fun to play I suppose, but it is not my kettle of fish. Sonya afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 18:10:35 - [549] - Quote baltec That is untrue. The assumption is that single reds that remain in system not in direct proximity to gates are cloaked. Probing rarely if ever takes place in response to single reds or neuts. Because: Get a life, bro. Watching paint dry approaches to the game have 0 universal appeal. Ever realize that losing ships in PvP is more expensive than not losing ships in PvP? Human error assures that ships will get caught in system small gang roams pass through if ships are actually undocked. The major issue small gang roams face is being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky campers that turn target rich environments into a target poor environments. Don't rooster block, bro. We can't catch stuff when afk cloaky camping keeps them docked. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 18:46:12 - [550] - Quote Sonya Ratter thinking processes is not my concern beyond noting they do not undock until becoming habituated to the presence of an afk cloak camper. This habituation period can be measured more appropriately in weeks than days and has to be repeated after a single kill event at the convenience of the afk cloaky camper. This is a huge problem for small gang roams. Our targets are docked because of afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping in effect keeps ratters far safer than the combination of local and alliance intel ever could. It removes the possibility of human error. We can't catch docked ships under any circumstance, sis. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 19:15:50 - [551] - Quote Ratpack Human error, my dear friend. I am fine with 97% of potential targets docking up because 97 of 100 ratters are paying attention. I am not fine with 100% of them being docked because of afk cloaky campers. Sonya That suggestion fails to meet my "least intrusive" principle. You really should create a thread to discuss getting rid of local in null sec though. Or revive a dead thread on the topic at the bottom of this forum somewhere. Good luck with that project. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 19:51:52 - [552] - Quote Sonya Cool story, sis. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 20:46:50 - [553] - Quote Ratpack Just saving forum space, my dear friend. Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. Always appreciated. To type out the cool story. Dora the explorer is noted on her route into a hostile system. Someone there is tired of her pouching sites, so undocks and launches probes. The mere act of doing that blocks her from running data/relic sites. Now she knows the site may have been scanned down, so she can no longer use it because someone may be cloaked waiting there to ambush her. So, yah. If a neut/red is identified in an exploring ship, then people will assume it is an exploring ship unless it stays in a system for an extended period. Cool story, ain't it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 20:57:14 - [554] - Quote Sonya Why would anyone care if an afk cloaky camper was in a null-sec system if the security there was 0.5 or greater? Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high sec are nuclear options. Fun to talk about, but pretty trollish frankly. Better to go with the least intrusive approach. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 21:07:26 - [555] - Quote Sonya We can call it The space formerly known as null-sec to cater to both the pedantic and to prince admirers. The important thing is that issues with afk cloaky camping in null sec are resolved using highly intrusive means. Edit The point being: Surrogate wormholes and surrogate high-sec are both highly intrusive, nuclear options that should not be used under the cloak of resolving afk cloaky camping issues. It really is quite trollish to mention either as a possible solution in this thread. But good fun. There is that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.20 22:02:53 - [556] - Quote Ratpack Yepp. It is hard to take the "lets turn null-sec into surrogate wh-space to fix afk cloaky camping issues" arguement seriously. Yet posters' inner trolls have prattled on about that extensively in this thread. Go figure. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 06:55:18 - [557] - Quote Vic Thank you for sharing your opinions! I think I willl opt for the least intrusive approach and state that cloaks must be aligned with command bursts as soon as possible and the modules be given a 5 hour charge capacity. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 10:56:02 - [558] - Quote Baltec1 Wrong, my dear friend. Wrong in so many ways. But thank you for sharing your opinion. It is always greatly appreciated. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 12:00:29 - [559] - Quote Baltec Thank you for sharing, buddy! It does not make you less wrong, but I firmly believe everyone should have as many opinions as they care generate. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 13:18:27 - [560] - Quote Sonya Intrusiveness is always in the eye of the beholder. I am quite certain ratters would find a slight change to cloaking modules far less intrusive than even the smallest fitting change to their ratting ships. You can of course argue that ratting players are irrevokably broken and need to be fixed, but attempting that would of course be highly intrusive. As this thread has demonstrated many times. All I want is for a high volume of ratting ships to be undocked so that the unwary amongst them can be caught by small gang roams. Human error is the premier pvp content provider in null-sec. Well, I would not mind probing down systems 5 hours and 5 minutes after downtime, and 10 hours and 10 minutes after down time. Because you never know if a afk cloaky camper might miss reloading the charges in his or her cloaking device. Because: Human error is the premier pvp content provider in null-sec. Afk cloaky campers will just have to bear the risk of making a mistake I suppose. The horror. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 13:41:07 - [561] - Quote Limi I am not a fan of null-sec becoming a wormhole surrogate. Changing local to resolve issues with afk cloaky camping is highly intrusive. Vic I dont care if the cloaked vessel can carry 6 months of cloak charges in its cargohold. The charge criteria (with a 5 hour charge capacity in line with command bursts) does not do anything except introduce the possibility of human error. The afk cloaky camper may indeed forget to reload the cloak. It may not happen often, but will happen often enough to warrant probing down a afk cloaky camped system 5 hours and 5 minutes after downtime. 10 hours and 10 minutes after downtime etc. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 13:51:22 - [562] - Quote Sonya I would love for the perception that it is risk free to become established. Can you imagine the fun small gang roams will have amongst ratters who think they are safe? I am otherwise suggesting that afk cloaky camping include a miniscule degree of risk based entirely on human error. If the afk cloaky camper forgets to reload the cloaking module, then the ship can be probbed down. So...we do perhaps agree after all....risk free activity in null-sec space has to come to an end. The devil being the detail that only afk cloaky campers are truly safe while undocked in null-sec space. Yoiu seem to think that is just dandy. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 14:17:50 - [563] - Quote Limi Changing cloaks the way I suggest adds counter-play to afk cloaky camping specifically and exclusively (it provides only counter play to afk cloaky camping). This through human error. If a player remains afk too long, his or her cloaked ship becomes vulnerable to being probbed down. A whole cascade of changes are in my opinion simply too complex and intrusive an approach to use to adress issues pertaining to afk cloaky camping. Changes to local might be warranted on its own merits, but that is a bit outside the scope of this thread (as I alluded to earlier when comparing it to changing null-secs security status to 0.5 to resolve issues pertaining to afk cloaky camping). Sonya. Yes, I have heard that opinion expressed numerous times now. I disagree. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 10	Posted - 2016.10.21 14:47:18 - [564] - Quote Ratpack Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec. Which in turn is a function of volume. Catching 3% of a large number of ratters gives more kills than catching 3% of a small number of ratters. Afk-cloaky campers rooster-block small gang roams, buddy. Ships docked up are not vulnerable to human error. Lima Counter-play starts the moment you undock and launch probes. It does not depend on if the cloaky ship has been uncloaked or not. You cannot interact with anyone afk anyway. What I actually expect will happen is that there will be less afk cloaky campers as people cannot leave the pc puttering away while they are at school, or at the pub. For those that remain, counter play is an option. Just checking to see if they can be caught is a lot more satisfactory than not being able to do anything. There is also the counter-counter play. An afk cloaky camper pretends to be afk, lets himself/herself get probbed down, then lights the cyno as ships are warping in. Can we put it this way: Adding charges to cloaks is worthwhile. It may work out the way I think. There may be the need for additional tweaks. But its a start that is realistic to introduce relatively soon without creating cascade effects. I do understand where you are coming from. I am just looking at the least intrusive change I can imagine that is likely to give a positive content creating outcome. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 12	Posted - 2016.10.21 19:04:57 - [565] - Quote Brokk Thanks, bro. I do think the least intrusive measure that fixes afk cloaky camping is the way to go. The underlying issue (why afk cloaky camping is bad) being that afk cloaky camping destroys content. Charged based cloaks generate a lot of content opportunities that currently do not exist. The only downside is that whoever wants to afk cloaky camp has to be reasonably sure they will be at the keyboard at some point within the next 5 hours. Their bad if they get that wrong. It may not be enough. But it certainly is a start. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 12	Posted - 2016.10.21 19:32:24 - [566] - Quote baltec Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like. The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills. Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes. But we have been through these points a few times now. I should remember copy paste is my friend at some point :). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 12	Posted - 2016.10.21 19:40:51 - [567] - Quote Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like. The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills. Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes. But we have been through these points a few times now. I remembered copy-paste is my friend :). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 12	Posted - 2016.10.21 19:48:04 - [568] - Quote Baltec My answer for goon space would be that if you think afk cloaky camping is effective deep in say goon space, then do that and remember to reload your cloak module every 5 hours. But I think you are actually rehashing a battle already lost. This thread is not about jump fatigue and the weakening of strategic mobility. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 12	Posted - 2016.10.21 20:55:12 - [569] - Quote Baltec You are as afk as you want to be. I hate to use the word pathetic. But that is sort of what pops up when I consider the merits of your objection. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 08:25:59 - [570] - Quote Ratpack You have the right you your opinions, no matter how wrong they may be. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 09:22:41 - [571] - Quote Ratpack I will admit to often assuming malice, when simple stupidity has sufficient explanatory power. So, yes, when I act on assuming people understand the disasterous caskading conscequences of their musings, I sometimes assume malice, and can be slightly uncouth. But that is never the case with you, my dear friend! I never assume malice! The laws of large numbers make me right. The more people in space, the more they will screw up and die. We can discuss what fractions might screw up (I am operating with 3%, but that is just a number aligned with industrial quality standards in real life), we can discuss if rat bounties should be tweaked down as a conscequence of giving cloak modules charge capacity. We can even discuss if we think command burst style charges for cloaks is an insufficient intervention (a problem with the least intrusive approach is that I might be erring on the side of caution). If we ever wanted to move forward. But forward momentum does not seem to be much of a priority here. Which is fair enough. Good fun and all that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 10:33:14 - [572] - Quote Baltec You are not spending a week doing nothing. You are spending a week destroying content until ratters become habituated to your presence and begin to make sorties into space again. Mass destruction of content cannot be justified by a single kill on a biweekly basis. Log off if you are unwilling or unable to reload the cloaking module in 5 hours. You will still be in system the next time you log on. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 10:43:31 - [573] - Quote Ratpack You have every right to your opinions, my dear friend! No matter how wrong they are. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 12:40:26 - [574] - Quote Ratpack There is a simple fix that could not be implemented earlier because it would have an adverse effect on the business side of Eve. You can say what you want about afk anything, but the afk lifestyle is superb at keeping player numbers on the server relatively stable. The business side raison etre for afk cloaky camping ends with the advent of alpha clones. Afk cloaky campers are no longer needed to keep player numbers on the server stable. I have mentioned this a number of times already. I guess you can see why I never suspected you of malice, my dear friend. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 13:03:31 - [575] - Quote I will always consider you one of my dearest friends, dear friend. Afk anything is very good at stabilizing server numbers. Its what the afk-lifestyle does best. And indeed, CCP has done something. It has changed its business model and introduced alpha clones. Yay. Afk cloaky camping is no longer required. But thank you for any service you may have provided by boosting the server number count while at school, or busy with mandatory after school activities. It is truly greatly appreciated. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 15:27:20 - [576] - Quote Ratpack You have the right you opinions as always, my dear friend. In this case, you have the right not to understand these kinds of things. Baltec If checking a screen once every 5 hours is too strenous for you, then we certainly ruin afk cloaky camping for you. The horror. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 16:22:43 - [577] - Quote Ratpack You have every right to your opinions, my dear friend. Feel free to think you have shredded anything you like :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 16:45:05 - [578] - Quote Ratpack Just be happy, my dear friend. The introduction of a command burst style charge capacity for cloak modules might even strengthen an argument for the "surrogate wormhole" null sec mechanisms you seem to be a fan off. Just look for the silver lining in life. It lessens the need to create drama. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 17:25:14 - [579] - Quote Ratpack And this 7000 post thread's sticky status is just some happy coincidental sign of CCP's indifference? I realize that CCP had very good reason to be wary of changes that would decrease the number of active accounts on the server. Say what you want about afk anything, but the afk-lifestyle is very good at maintaining server numbers. No human can match the pure online time of an afk account. There are 3 500 null-sec systems (ref: my dear friend, google). And 23k accounts online at a time over a 3 month average (its currently 20k - which is also the 1 month average ref: Eve Offline). So yah, tweakinng cloaking mechanisms before the introduction of alpha clones would have been a bad business decision. Afk cloaky campers played an important role in making EvE seem more alive that is factually was. Its a big deal and afk cloaky camper accounts have done everyone playing EvE a great service. But CCP has changed its business model. Alpha clones (and merging with the Chinese server in the new year) enters. Persistent afk cloaky camping exits. Its fine that you are unwilling or unable to understand this. Besides, what does it matter? If you are right and CCP will not introduced command burst charge function to cloaking modules, then you are right and I was wrong. But you will never be proven right. Not until the server permanently shuts down. Opinions are just grand, arent they? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 18:52:03 - [580] - Quote Ratpack The chinese server is shutting down and the chinese will be merging with the rest of us. I am sorry you did not understand what I was referring to. I should not have assumed you knew and should have chosen my wording more carefully. Any other points I can clarify for you? I am, as always, glad to help dear friends. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 19:22:22 - [581] - Quote Ratpack I was surprised myself initially. But there is a lot of nuance to the great firewall of China. Lets declare there was a official migration if a simplified chinese (mandarin) client is released, but not before that point. Shall we continue to drift into off-topic drama for another half-dozen posts, or is the above definition ok and we can move on back to the matter at hand? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 20:00:07 - [582] - Quote In a parenthesis noted, my dear friend. We shall see if there is a major chinese influx. But that is for the future. I am more than happy to accept that the pending chinese server closure is neither pertinent, nor germaine. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 20:57:21 - [583] - Quote Ratpack Why shucks, bro. Thank you! " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.22 21:22:54 - [584] - Quote Omnathious Indeed. It is quite convenient. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.23 06:43:13 - [585] - Quote Omni Thanks for sharing, bro. Ratpack You have an incredibly high opinion of Brokk. The stylistic variation alone would make him a world class writer. Thank you for making me part of that huge compliment! " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.23 07:54:11 - [586] - Quote Ratpack Brokk it your choice name for small forum conspiracy you see? It lacks a certain penache, but fair enough. Anything that gives you peace, my dear friend. Anything at all. Brokk I hope you are not too insulted. Ratpack is actually just suggesting I am an imitation of you. Imitation being the highest form of compliment. So he is being nice in his odd way. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.23 08:11:09 - [587] - Quote Ratpack Anyway, now that you have convinced yourself of a forum trinity Jerghul-Brok-Olivia - praised be their/its name(s), perhaps we can shift back to on topic? 12 hour cloak capacity is not aligned with burst charge capacity. I think CCP put some thought into why the new link system should last for 5 hours without needing direct player input (so could be run afk) instead of say 1 hour, or 12 hours. So I am running with that. It is always good to emulate people who know stuff when information is limited. There is no real contradiction with accepting chronic loss in player retention (bleed-offs of players frustrated with the afk cloaky camping mechanics as is, and who log on less, then stop logging on at all) and not wanting catastrophic drops in server activity (I would be hard pressed to quantify this presicely, but introducing cloak charges would certainly see 100ds of less players online. In that order of magnitude. Simply because people have lives and cannot check EvE every 5 hours all the time). This is a big number thing, so its ok if you cannot or don't want to get it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.23 08:40:47 - [588] - Quote Ratpack I reported that last post for spam and asked that they check IPs to decomfirm your ludicrous theory (the stylistic variations between my and Brok's posts are not within the realm of what a human can actually pull off). Now if you could please return to topic. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.24 10:22:13 - [589] - Quote Brokk [mutualappreciationsociety] I am really going to have to figure out how to like posts at some point. You have a couple of posts really deserving of a thumbs up. [/mutualappreciationsociety] I think a command burst system for cloaks would work nicely. Loss of a 100ds of accounts online at any given time (in that order of magnitude) More ratters in space More ratters killed (kills a function of ratters in space. They have to be undocked to screw up) afk-cloaky camper counter-play (sometimes they will screw up and not be active within 5 hrs). counter-counter play (afk cloaky camper can pretend to screw up and light cyno as probbing fleet is warping in to him) Frankly, the last point alone could give afk cloaky campers more kills than they get today. But they would not control all the variables perfectly. Which seems to be a huge issue for some of the posters you have blocked (the dl:dr version of their positions). Ratpack The moderator just deleted several of your posts, bro. You are being just plain disrespectful of them. Reported. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.24 15:27:14 - [590] - Quote Brokk For a cloak charge system aligned with the incoming command bursts: The afk cloaky camper would still provide content unless within the 5 hour window after down-time. You log on 5+ hours after the server goes back online. See a single neut/red in system...so you can try to probe it down. It may have uncloaked. Only one way to find out for sure (dscan only shows ships in dscan range - include potential deep safes and systems are too large for dscan). Successful/unsuccessful - does not matter. The probing attempt is content in itself. The downside from an afk cloaky camping perspective is simply that you cannot afk cloaky camp in complete security unless you know for certain you can be active once in the next 5 hours. So the number of cloaky campers will decrease (people will not always know if they can be active again in the given time frame, so will have to log for complete security). The buff is of course the counter counter-play. Pretend to be decloaked after 5 hours and light a cyno when the probbing fleet warps to you. This alone could give more kills than the biweekly kill frequency ratter habituation requires. But I would not expect afk cloaky campers to know their own good. The urge to have absolute control over variables runs strong in that playing-style. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 09:40:12 - [591] - Quote Brokk Removing local was the idea borrowed from wormholes. I just though "mkay, what compensation did wormhole dwellers get for that?" Turns out the player ability to manipulate gates is one of the compensations. I am not a huge fan of either ideas. K-space is k-space. wh-space is worm-hole space. Hybrid variants are not good. Removing local is an incredibly intrusive way to resolve issues with afk cloaky camping. Removing local may resolve other things of course. But that is a matter for a different thread (one that has 13 posts from about a year ago to be exact). I am fine with the observation array concept IN ADDITION to adding cloak charges and would not mind a slight delay on local either. But nothing more than say a 1 second delay. Ratters have to feel safe to undock. I need them to undock to catch a fraction of them on small gang roams. A 1 second delay give ratters less reaction time A 3 second delay keeps them docked up " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 14:55:32 - [592] - Quote Sonya They could if they would, but they won't. Not that this would help small gangs much. The idea is not for them to undock with immunity to small gang roams. The idea is that they undock with a sense of security, but with vulnerability to small gang roams. But sure, mechanisms could be changed to make sure ratters were pvp fit. Rats causing omni damage would be a good start. Or overseers warping off with their personal belongings unless scrammed. Adapt the rats to make sure the optimal rat fit is a very solid pvp fit. Smarter rats and better bounties to compensate for loss of raw kill numbers. CCP has amassed a lot of experience with that that could be transferred to normal ratting grinds. In short: Sure CCP could do stuff to make pvp fits optimal ratting fits. But that fails on my "least intrusive" principle. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 16:48:13 - [593] - Quote Sonya Thank you for sharing! I actually spend a lot of time in wormholes. Drunk driving in Occators without a scout is a favourite past-time of mine. Maybe I could catch myself in a small gang roam...as there never is anyone else around. All I want is for cloaking modules to be aligned with the new command bursts and have a 5 hour charge capacity. With all the goodness that would flow from that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 17:12:02 - [594] - Quote Sonya Its not about me, sis. Introducing cloak charges aligned with the command burst charge system would result in more vulnerable ships in hostile space. The concept is brilliant in its simplicity if I may say so myself. And I will. Or did. Whatever :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 18:21:16 - [595] - Quote Sonya I am sure some afk cloaky campers lack the emotional, physical, or mental fortitude to maximize their cloaked ship account screen every 5 hours. But they would belong to the minority. Its nice to see that the fortitude handicapped have found a champion in you! You should consider real life volunteer work. You obviously have a talent for it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.25 21:08:27 - [596] - Quote Sonya I never said you had. In fact I specifically made it clear you are speaking on behalf of a group that you did not belong to. Nice charity work for a crippled cause, sis. Baltec Afk cloaky camping kills content, buddy. I showed you all how it could instead generate content. We should add my gloating endlessly as a possible downside to aligning cloaks with bust charge system and gaining a 5 hour charge capacity. It will be nauseating. Even for me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.29 22:38:50 - [597] - Quote Ioon Hardly wasted. Some CCP intern spending less than a day reading through this and bulletpointing ideas worth highlighting for this or that interteam meeting.... Not exactly the skin off anyone's teeth and a good learning experience for the budding professional in question. Wander 1 hour seems ungenerous. 5 hours aligned with the pending command burst system seems nice. You saw CCP is testing out mining rats with mining rat standing fleets on the test server? No doubt independent discovery and not something that was suggested around page 340 in this thread. Smarter rats give smarter ratters (if you want ratting ships to be pvp fit, then make rats that suggest that the optimal ratting fit is also a very strong pvp fit). Omni damage for the win :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.30 12:08:44 - [598] - Quote ioon They are not missing the point. They are simply deeply entrenched on the position they hold. They will abandon the current afk cloaky camping mechanism a few months after CCP pries it out of their cold dead fingers. They are currently resisting a 5 hour timer that I am speaking of incidentally (the mechanism there is a cloak charge similar to the command burst charges pending) :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.30 15:10:00 - [599] - Quote Ratpack lulz. Cloak modules with a 5 hour charge capacity is a pretty extreme compromise. CCP is going to be far more intrusive. ...Major buff combat buffs to mining fleets combined with npc ratting fleets automatically targetting anyone on grid with low security status... Before even touching the afk cloaky camping mechanism directly. Oh the tears will flow. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.30 17:46:25 - [600] - Quote Ioon Cloak module charges with a 5 hour charge capacity introduces human error (the premier null-sec content provider). 1. An afk cloaky camper may believe he or she will be back from the pub in time to reload charges into the cloaking module, but screws that up because beer. Afk cloaky camper becomes afk ship in space. 2. It decreases the number of afk cloaky campers somewhat. People unsure if they can be ATK within the next 5 hours might choose to log off instead of risking 1. 3. It creates content even if the afk cloaky camper does not screw up. Players have motive to probe down their system 5 hours 5 minutes after server comes online, 10 hrs 10 minutes etc. The act of probing is content in itself, even if the afk cloaky camper is still cloaked. 4. It gives counter-counterplay. An afk cloaky camper can always allow the cloak to run out, then light a cyno and ambush whoever is in warp to catch him under the illusion he is still afk. It is by design meant as a change that is as least intrusive as possible while introducing a chance for human error. Perfect play is still perfectly safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.30 23:26:39 - [601] - Quote Ioon Like I said, the least intrusive imaginable. The 5 hours are taken from command bursts by the following logic: CCP decided command bursts going on for 5 hours without the need of player input is ok (why 5 instead of 1, 3 , 7 or 9 I dont know). CCP has more information than I do. If 5 hours afk command bursts is ok, then 5 hours afk cloaky camping is probably ok for the same undefined reasons. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 07:26:19 - [602] - Quote Ioon Just set the opportunity cost for cyno blocking arrays to 0 for a less intrusive change that achieves the same result. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 15:58:00 - [603] - Quote Sonya Au contraire! I would happily compromise towards Ioon's idea of a 1 hour timer for afk cloaky camping. Or compromise towards effective systemwide cyno-blockers without meaningful opportunity costs (for example the a ship based deployable module). Changing null-sec local involves giving players the opportunity to manipulate null-sec gates (which is how it is balanced in wh space). I am not a huge fan of intrusive measures of this type. And also think changing local is a hugely off-topic discussion tacked on here because...well...the actual thread on changing local has 0 traction (13 odd posts from a year ago if I remember correctly). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 16:24:54 - [604] - Quote Sonya Population statistics in wh-space demonstrate clearly how much people hate no local. Despite the relative safety and convenient revenue mechanisms there provide. Changing that in null-sec would require player ability to manipulate gates, system wide cyno blocks without opportunity cost and enhanced revenue opportunities as compensation. Which is a discussion completely outside the framework of this thread. I will be reporting you for trying to derail the discussion if you persist in claiming this is a "change local" thread. We are discussing how afk cloaky camping can be curtailed somewhat to limit the negative impact it has on null-sec content. The least instrusive measure that would have an effect is introducing charges with 5 hour capacity for cloaking modules. This represents the final compromise. Anything else will be more intrusive and nerf the afk cloaky camping lifestyle much more harshly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 17:09:15 - [605] - Quote Ratpack Its not part of the discussion. No local is a different discussion. A dead discussion as the status of the thread in question indicated. There are undoubtably better ways to provide individual players with real time intel than local. I agree with CCP there. The problem with nullsec relates more to lack of players in space than it does to relative safety while in space. Which incidentally is the wormhole issue too. Yay Citadelles for more home comfort. Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be. I have nothing against changing isk/tick and linking that to the discussion. Isk lost (in ships) per isk earned is a useful metric. Afk cloaky camping decreases isk lost (in ships). This is bad. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 19:11:04 - [606] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. Changing local is literally a dead topic that has been latched onto this thread because people care only to the extent that they hate the idea. If you want to discuss better ways for players to gain real time information, then be my guest. In a different thread. Reported. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 20:18:38 - [607] - Quote Ratpack Reported for Ad-hom. Sonya If players wanted to play in wormhole space, they would do that and be there. Its frankly a pretty unpopular game environment variation. Way to not understand what I have said many, many times: "Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 20:50:49 - [608] - Quote Ratpack Discussions on how null sec players best should have real time intelligence is the subject for a different (and very dead) thread. No one lives in wh space. It is by far the least popular of game environments. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 21:29:26 - [609] - Quote Pech People pay their subscriptions, are able to log on, then when they log on, they see the afk cloaky camper in system. The way to stop knowing if someone is cloaked in a system is to stop paying subscriiptions and logging on. Lets go with that fix. Sonya People in null sec do not use peak times to PvE. They use it to PvP in epic battles. A lifestyle combining pve and pvp is pretty niche. See wormholes for the fraction of eve's population that appeals to. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 22:21:32 - [610] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. The least intrusive change imaginable is a 5 hour timer (using command burst mechanics). For discussions on how to give players real time information. See a completely different thread. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.10.31 23:32:11 - [611] - Quote Ratpack Wrong More ships in space is unqualifably a good thing for any-sec. It gives more contact points for content. Afk cloaky camping keeps ships docked. That is the only problem with it. Afk cloaky camping kills content. The change I suggest makes ships more unsafe because they will undock more. Undocked ships are vulnerable to human error. Docked ships are not vulnerable to anything. Afk cloaky campers would also become vulnerable to human error. They may at times miss the 5 hour reload. Yay. Predation levels do not have to be particularly high to justify small gang roams. I am operating with 3%. 3% of ratters in any system will screw up and not make it to safety. The content gains come from more ships being undocked at any given time. Which in turn makes small gangs more viable - or even afk cloaky camping more viable (I have explained earlier how an afk cloaky camper can get a lot more kills with the change). If ratters are safer per isk earned, after deducting ship losses, then bounties need to be tweaked. Removing local degrades content. It gives less ships in space. Which is specifically the problem with afk cloaky camping. Removing local kills content. There are better ways to give players real time information than local. But local has to stay until alternate real time information alternatives have been deployed. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 00:04:25 - [612] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. Ships undock because of local. The perception of relative safety is an incredibly important content generator. Not every undocked ship will get caught, but 3% is good enough if the volume of undocked ships is large enough. Remove local and you dramatically decrease the number of undocked ships. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 00:43:11 - [613] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. Relative safety. Lots of things can still go wrong. And will go wrong. For 3% of the ratting ships. BUT THEY HAVE TO BE UNDOCKED TO SCREW UP. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 01:18:25 - [614] - Quote Wander Nothing went wrong if nothing went wrong you mean. Relative safety. Lots of things can still go wrong. And will go wrong. For 3% of the ratting ships. BUT THEY HAVE TO BE UNDOCKED TO SCREW UP. Human error is the premier content provider in nullsec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 07:36:23 - [615] - Quote Sonya Cool story, sis Ratpack Hence my advocating a slight change to the cloaking mechanism. Its such a elegant fix. Yay. Me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 10:04:57 - [616] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. The prerequisite for changing local is giving players other real time information tools. Anything else renders nullsec as dead (or deader) than w-space. Which is just a pisspoor idea. That you can freely talk about in the relevant dead threads in this forum. The final compromise and end word on this topic is here (though I do not discount CCP opting for a much more intrusive nerf to afk cloaky camping). This is the best deal you can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 11:42:17 - [617] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. Nothing in Eve is safer than staying docked up (afk cloaky camping is equally safe come to think of it). Any measure in 0-sec that causes players to undock more often is more dangerous than the current status quo. This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" Sorry, bro. You lose. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 12:07:53 - [618] - Quote Omna Au contraire, my dear friend. My analytical approach assumes CCP will in fact make much more intrusive nerf to the cloaking modules. As should have been clear in "This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get". The actual deal will very likely be far worse. "This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 12:49:17 - [619] - Quote Ratpack Wrong. Eve can be understood at many levels. Feel free to understand it at your own lethargic pace. The change I am suggesting is based on the introduction of alpha clones. So the time for change is after the 15th of November. "This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 14:50:36 - [620] - Quote Omna Mais au contraire, mon cher ami! I have in no way suggested my argument is driven by consensus. "This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 15:54:14 - [621] - Quote Ratpack "We can't just isn't I ignore" Functional literacy is a worthy goal, my dearest friend I am sure both your reading comprehension and writing skills will surpass basic thresholds one day soon! " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 16:22:14 - [622] - Quote Ratpack You have the right to your opinion as always, my dearest friend. Anywho, as we shift back on topic: "This is the best deal afk cloaky camper lovers can get: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 17:24:15 - [623] - Quote Sonya Sister, dearest I have in fact responded to your query quite a number of times in my 500+ posts in this thread. A quick recap I have no idea of the %, but it is far less than 100% Null-sec uses peak time for epic PvP, not wormhole hybrid PvE/PvP Duplicating the wormhole lifestyle is not desirable in nullsec as most players find it extremely unappealing. Players opt for not undocking ahead of adapting wormhole techniques You cannot change players without rendering nullsec as dead or deader than wormhole space. You cannot remove local without rendering nullsec as dead or deader than wormhole space. Lots of game mechanisms can be introduced to assure that null-sec ratters are pvp ready You do not like any of them. As lengthy discussions have shown. Today's youth. Sigh " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 17:31:40 - [624] - Quote Ratpack My dearest friend. Has any of my posts ever suggested that I care in the slightest what you think about me? I do care about keeping the thread on topic. And while I can happily repost to keep the thread on track, it is a bit annoying to have to cut through the adhom chaff on a continual basis. Its been quite some time since you have had any constructive thoughts on the thread topic. I always respond seriously to comments with actual merit. At least for the first several times they are repeated. Though my being dismissive at times is of course in part a generational thing. Reading was different in the olden days. We tend to remember what we read and find it vexing when the younguns do not. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 17:39:47 - [625] - Quote Sonya Sister, dearest. Its not about me. I have mentioned that many times already. I will admit to ratting recently as I like crimson harvest. But it generally is not my cup of tea at all. Nor is it about using peak times for PvE (which is the underlying assumption of your suggestion). afk cloaky camping kills content in nullsec. It keeps ships docked up and much safer than they could ever be undocked (barring being afk and cloaked of course). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 17:50:57 - [626] - Quote Ratpack We will just have to await the moderators verdict on that. Anywho. "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" Removing local without replacing it with other real time information mechanisms will leave null-sec as dead or deader than wormhole space. The perception of safety can only be fostered under that condition. Players will undock far less often if the perception of safety is missing. Removing local kills content so effectively it would render afk cloaky camping redundant. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 17:57:57 - [627] - Quote Sonya I don't buy "the players are broken" argument. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Sure there is a high degree of entitlement in Eve. I am not suggesting it be catered to and would happily see bounties nerfed to keep isk/tick after subtracting ship loses stable - or even decreased. I want more ships in null-sec space so players have the opportunity to screw up and lose the ships they are flying. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 18:21:07 - [628] - Quote Sonya That is demonstratably wrong. You are describing a wormhole like environment that players in general find extremely unappealing. I want to increase the total number of ship hours in null-sec space. Increase total ship hours Decrease ships lost per ship hour Increase total ships lost Decrease bounties to keep total net isk revenue stable (revenue a function of ship hours ratting) Ratpack You may want to read that last post of mine another time or two. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 18:41:03 - [629] - Quote Sonya They have not tried it because they find wormhole space unappealing. Ultimately, that answers why consistent real time information has to be free for individual pilots in nullsec. The alternative is rendering null sec as dead, or deader than wormhole space. But to sum up. Our differences seem to be philosophical. I want more ships undocked in nullsec. You do not want that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 19:06:04 - [630] - Quote Sonya I find worms unappealing. Without actually ever tasting one. We can try again. Wormhole space does not appeal to most Eve players, so they have not tried it. Yay semantics. Words mean something. More ships undocked may not be your goal. But it is my goal. Because each ship in space can be caught if hunted. All that is needed is for the pilot to screw up. I am operating with a 3% screw up rate. The more ships in space, the more pilots will screw up. Human error is the supreme content provider in null-sec. Its ok that you do not understand it. And then of course it follows that you cannot understand my argument. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 19:37:40 - [631] - Quote Sonya Cool story, sis. Anywho, to get back on track: "Introducing command burst style charges to cloaks (equivalent of a 5 hour timer). Effects 0-sec on a daily basis. Order of magnitude indicated: 100ds less afk cloaky camped systems (a double digit % reduction) 10s afk cloaky campers killed due to human error (becoming uncloaked after 5 hours and probbed down) 1000nds more ships in space 100ds more ratters (and others) killed. Higher bounty revenue (double digit % increase)" Removing local without replacing it with other real time information mechanisms will leave null-sec as dead or deader than wormhole space. The perception of safety can only be fostered under that condition. Players will undock far less often if the perception of safety is missing. Removing local kills content so effectively it would render afk cloaky camping redundant." " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 19:51:47 - [632] - Quote Ratpack Wrong, my dearest friend. But feel free to have as many opinions as you like. After all, I live in a free country :-) " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 20:17:57 - [633] - Quote Bronson The only thing wrong with afk cloaky camping is that it kills content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.01 20:50:22 - [634] - Quote Sonya Nothing you said was relevant, interesting, or undiscussed. The same goes for what you just posted. You have ideas of what you think nullsec should be. Fair enough. I suppose. But there is 0 overlap with what I want to see. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.03 17:07:14 - [635] - Quote On the point that bounties may need a tweak. I reviewed last months economic data. I am putting lower bounties as a premise for introducing command burst type charges for cloaking modules (ie 5 hour timer). Instead of a possible consequence of doing so. Edit Lower bounties the end effect. I don't care if it achieved by rats warping off into the sunset with the overseers personal effects if they are in an obviously losing position (which may be one way of doing things. Ratting with scrams to keep the treasures from escaping. Yay :). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.03 22:04:44 - [636] - Quote Ratpack Yes, we know you think a 5 hour timer on cloaking modules is a bad idea. I am also incredibly supportive of your right to have as many opinions as you want. More ships in space will give more ratting sites run. It is quite obvious from the economic overview that ratting bounties are a bit too high already. More ratting will make it even higher. Lower bounties is now a premise for instead of a consequence of more ships in space. I have no desire to increase the bounty faucet. I want more ships in space dividing the same faucet. There are other ways to fix things. We will see how it plays out, but belt ratting looks to have been fixed using other means. The sum of those means are very intrusive from an afk cloaky camper perspective. You may rue the day if CCP moves forward in a similar way for ratting activity. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.03 22:26:11 - [637] - Quote Ratpack CCP suggests that local is not really an appropriate way to get real time information. I have no issue with that stance. I do have issues with rendering afk cloaky camping by removing local and making null sec as dead or deader than wormhole space. The premise for changing local is introducing other tools that give individual players real time information. Most people ratting do the right things most of the time. They are interesting when they do not do the right things and can get caught (I use the term human error for that). The chance of getting caught can be expressed as a % of the number of ships undocked. I am operating with 3%. I high-jacked the number from industrial standards. So debatable. It could be a different %. Increase the number of ships and you increase the number of victims is the point. Increase the number of victims and you increase the number of hunters. The problem with afk cloaky camping is that it relies on habituation. Players slowly get used to the camper in system and gradually lower their guard and make a mistake (undock to rat). It is a very inefficient way of generating kills and keeps ratters safe and docked instead of undocked and vulnerable to making mistakes and getting caught. The 5 hour timer does not end afk cloaky camping. It tempers the practice somewhat. Keep at it and do it properely.... ...And it will give you more kills than the current system does (by way of entrapment for example). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.03 23:56:58 - [638] - Quote Ratpack I am equating it to any metric you can shake a stick at. But CCP has the data. They know the standing of that hypothesis. We can just agree to disagree on it and move on. Access to real time information is not a problem, it is a premise for activity in null-sec. I do not care how individual players might access real time information in the future as long as they can access real time information. The problem with afk cloaky camping is simply that it keeps ships docked and safe, instead of undocked and unsafe. I see the need to temper afk cloaky camping somewhat for that reason and that reason alone. Changing local in a way that keeps ships docked and safe, instead of undocked and unsafe is not a solution, even if doing so renders afk cloaky camping redundant. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 06:32:16 - [639] - Quote Wander Of course I am ok with players perching off gates and looking at stuff. Heavens, why would I want that to stop? I am fine with lots of things. I am fine with getting rid of all that "free stuff players get without deserving it" in portions of null-sec that players use. Like gates and local real time information. Closing down local and gates in some null-sec locations without warning would be lulzy. Making both work erratically would be lulzy. Making both player manipulatable would be lulzy. But those null-sec systems would no longer be null-sec in anything other than name. I am fine with introducing all kinds of worm-hole type mechanisms into portions of null-sec. But I am not fine with removing local without replacing it with other real time information mechanisms (note the use of plural). While doing that may render afk cloaky camping redundant, it would also result in less ships in space. Which is the only problem I have with afk cloaky camping in the first place. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 09:09:09 - [640] - Quote Ratpack local real time information = local No one is complaining about the chat function I believe (though goodness knows, people will complain about anything). I don't care what real time information mechanisms might some day replace local for as long as real time information is consistently available to individual players. Because otherwise there will be less ships in space. I don't really believe my reasoning is particularly difficult to follow. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 11:54:17 - [641] - Quote Ratpack If not real time, then less ships in space. Reported for adhom. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 12:26:45 - [642] - Quote Ratpack We will just have to agree to disagree on goals Mine is for more ships to die in nullsec Yours is for it to be more dangerous for any ships that are undocked in nullsec These goals are incompatible. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 17:04:03 - [643] - Quote Ratpack Well, you have the right to your opinion on what people should be like. I disagree that we need to change people - if for no other reason than it fails on my least intrusive principle. Vic Not everyone wants to play inside a blue doughnut. Nor could everyone even if they wanted to. Someone is always the outer icing. Did I take that metaphor too far? Mostly inertia. Its a hassle to rebase to follow incursions around when all you really want is to fund pvp pew-pew. This might change with the introduction of alpha clones; one omega to run incursions, an alpha/omega (depending on incusrion revenue) in null sec for pvp. I am actually suggesting that logging on to run a few sites is less of a hassle. As there are less afk cloaky camper blue-balling you. With less risk as more ships are out there not being blue-balled. The bounty data is pretty clear (even this month's dip is explained by the crimson harvest event). It could be carrier ratting or whatever is inflating stuff. I don't really know how ratting in null-sec decomposes. Null-sec is mostly boring for line members on off-peak times. Mostly because of afk cloaky campers keeping them docked. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:30:53 - [644] - Quote Vic I concern myself with what is. Not how we wish players were. Afk cloaky camping is bad only because it kills content. So yepp, I think afk cloaky camping should be tempered somewhat to increase content. Nothing dramatic. As I have outlined many times. I imagine you have noted my signature. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:51:23 - [645] - Quote Omna They would run like the girls they are. And some of them would screw up and get caught. I am operating with a 3% human error failure rate. 3% of something is greater than 100% of nothing. You caught my expectations. In the order of magnitude 1000nds more ships in space. In the order of magnitude of 100ds more kills a day. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 22:53:04 - [646] - Quote Omna I know. Hence bounty decreases being a premise for tempering (not removing) afk cloaky camping. Ratpack 1000nds more on a daily basis. You know that, bro. Goodness knows I have said it often enough. Sonya Its not about me, sis. Reported for adhom. Vic Nope. Afk cloaky camping relies on habituation get kills. Hang around until players get used to the afk cloaky camper, and finally make a mistake and undock. afk cloaky camping is hideously inefficient. Counter-counter play (pretending to be uncloaked by the 5 hour timer) will generate more kills for afk cloaky campers than they get now. If skillfully played. xcom The problem with afk cloaky camping is it kills content by keeping players docked. Removing local renders afk cloaky camping redundant, but would kill content by keeping even more players docked. So does not resolve the problem I see at all. Ratpack Exactly. afk cloaky campers need to HTFU and accept a slight risks of volitility to their gameplay. Sonya Providing alternate ways for individual players to gain consistent real time information is the premise for being able to disable local. But good to know you would support a way to hunt/track cloaked ships. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:28:59 - [647] - Quote Omna I expect to see a double digit % reduction in the number of afk cloaky camped systems. I would not care to wager the level of bounty reductions (measured in isk/ship hour) beyond suggesting the order of magnitude (double digit reduction) as we do not really know how bounties decompose. To what degree do ratting carriers (or whatever) inside blue doughnuts inflate total bounty numbers. More intelligent rats (overseers + henchmen flying off with their personal things if not overseer not scrammed when facing losing battle) might be as easy a way to nerf bounties as anything. And sort of fits the direction CCP wants to move in. But who knows. All I know is that bounty reduction is a premise for introducing a command burst style charge for cloaking modules (ie a 5 hour timer), not a coscequence as I initially thought. Edit ok, I laughed. Bosses saying "screw this" and warping out of rooms with the final wave of henchmen would irritate the crap out of everyone. It must be a good idea :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:47:13 - [648] - Quote Ratpack Thank you for thinking that through a bit more for your second post. Yepp, people would actually have to go on ratting roams, or suffer their way through with belt rats. Bounties would not increase on a linear scale, nor would 60 billion isk/hr be even close to average bounty payouts (its actually not even close to the average sum of loot+bounties+salvage) I do not really feel the need to engage in pseudo-math beyond noting that bounties (isk/hr) would need to be reduced in a double digit order of magnitude. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 00:07:05 - [649] - Quote Omna Again, I am not suggesting afk cloaky camping be removed, merely tempered. My expectation is for a double digit % reduction of systems camped. And a double digit % increase in bounties payout if that does not change. Which is why I strongly suggest reducing bounties as a premise for the concept. But bounty pay-outs will not increase linearly as the result of increased undocked ships. All sites are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Ratpack "engage in pseudo-math beyond noting order of magnitude" indicates clearly I know this is not an exact science. You are trying to overspecify when there are too many unknown variables. "No ratpack, bad ratpack!" Jerghul rolls up newspaper in threatening manner :-) " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 01:09:13 - [650] - Quote Teckos Its quite valid to state expected effects within a huge margin of error. I used orders of magnitude (give or take a 0). Is it pseudo-math? Sure. But over-specifying with many unknown variables like you tried just does not work. Macro? Well, then the system is no longer cloaky camped. All it does is give 5 extra camping hours. Which I am sure some people will do. Yay life hax. Scripio The logic has been repeated so many times, it was reported as spam. Quite justified to report it I thought. If charges (5 hour timers) are introduced, then the afk cloaky camper has to be atk ever 5 hours or risk being probbed down when his afk cloaky camper becomes an afk ship in space. So a certain % of afk cloaky campers will decide to log off in unsure of making it back from the pub in 5 hours (or whatever). Even given redundancies (some systems have multiple cloaky campers), I still feel reasonably sure the reduction in cloaky camped systems will be in the double digit %. So more than a 9% reduction and less than a 100% reduction. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 01:39:24 - [651] - Quote Sonya Reported for adhom. I would suggest you review the forum rules. Otherwise, recognizing your position does not entail agreeing with it. So that part would be a strawman argument. You can do better, I have seen you debate in good faith for several posts in a row occassionally. Ratpack You too incidentally for masked profanity. Scorpio Lack of data. CCP has the data and can verify some of the assumptions in early stage concept evaluations if it wants to. It is otherwise perfectly valid to state expectations for as long as the degree of uncertainty is explicit. Uncertainty does not get more explicit than stating expectations within orders of magnitude. I am under no illusions that changes to game mechanics are consensus driven. You are not the one I am trying to convince. But I value your input. I have changed things as the result of exchanges here. Yay reluctant collaboration :-). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 01:54:14 - [652] - Quote Scripio The analysis is there for anyone to see. My expectations are not really particularly relevant in any order of magnitude beyond knowing the changes do go in the direction I suggest. Feel free to ignore the order of magnitude. I can restate it without qualifying the effects at times as a head-nod to your input. Reported for adhom. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 04:13:18 - [653] - Quote Scipio Reported again. Stop with the adhoms, bro. They are against forum rules. afk cloaky camping should be tempered because it keeps ships from undocking. Ironically making null-sec safer, as nothing besides afk cloaky camping is as safe as remaining docked up. I have repeatedly stated my objective: I want more ships in space in null-sec. You have other objectives. Fair enough. That is your right. Wander There is no reason to flag posts that simply attack ideas. Try to stick to that in a constructive way. Its not a personal opinion of mine. I can debate by whatever lowest common denominator there is. But the thread was closed recently. I think we owe the moderators to at least try to play by the forum rules. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 04:54:58 - [654] - Quote vic Nice use of qualifiers, bro. afk cloaky camping is extremely inefficient and generate very few kills per month. pvp ready ratters? Nice small gang chowder. Go with 97%. 99.9% is pure hyperbole. Yepp content in nullsec is too low. I want more ships undocked. Wait for the introduction of cloak charges before trying to pretend your cloak ran out of charges. If it does not work in deep sov, then don't do it in deep sov. Afk cloaky campers keep players docked up and extremely safe. I want them to undock and be unsafe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 05:55:14 - [655] - Quote Ratpack Thank you for sharing your subjective beliefs with us. Both the apriori and apost-priori belief perspectives are greatly appreciated. And here I was thinking only Norway had an obligatory Examen Philosophicum as part of all its University degree programmes. Anyway More ships will undock. 1000nds more per day. 23 000 (let me source that for you. source: Eve-offline) at a given time. Only CCP knows how many individual accounts log on per day (a number which can in turn be decompiled into various areas of space. Nice word. Decompiled). But we can be sure the number of daily log-ons is greater than 23000. More ships will get caught due to human error and a function of ships in space. 3% is based on industrial standards for acceptable deviation in components as I have repeatedly stated. 100 more people per hour undocked is within the ballpark of my 1000nds estimate incidentally. Indeed. The remaining 97 will generate hundreds of millions of new isk in the game. CCP would need to keep a close eye on total bounties and adjust it appropriately. I am very clear on my wanting more ships undocked and more ships killed. Because content. Good lad. Nothing even on the border of being reportable. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 12:44:07 - [656] - Quote Ratpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Pack What is not to like about Humphrey Borgart? I have mentioned this earlier. The same size as command burst charges of course. Its why the suggestion is framed as command burst style charges for cloaking modules. Mentioned many times. So bounties do not need to be reduced by very much is your argument? Mkay. Noted. And tempering afk cloaky camping might very well lead to less ships in space? Mkay. Noted Ratpack Wow....Just wow. My motive is quite transparent. Lets play by the forum rules for a few pages (it will inevitably degrade and become locked again anyway) simply out of respect for the moderators. Volunteerism is important to the function of civil society in general and the Eve Community in particular. We should respect those that do volunteer work. Bronson Tempering afk cloak camping will lead to more ships undocked. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.08 19:51:50 - [657] - Quote "Not undocking because there is a [afk] cloaked neutral/hostile in local" is a causation statement. Which I agree with. Hence my suggesting that afk cloaky camping be tempered somewhat by introducing a command burst type charge for cloaking modules (effectively a 5 hour timer). Humans adapt to mechanisms. I am not particularly concerned with balance. I am concerned with the lack of undocked ships. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.08 20:57:13 - [658] - Quote Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is fine. I am not blaming players for using afk cloaky campers (which by definition lack a human controller), nor am I blaming players for adapting to afk cloaky camping by not undocking. Nor am I even asking either group to change their ways fundamentally. The only problem with too many docked ships is that it gives too few ships in space. I am simply asserting that I want more undocked ships, and a way of achieving that is by tempering afk cloaky camping somewhat. Its a pretty straightforward position. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 03:03:53 - [659] - Quote post above this one reported. And indeed, if undocking did not involve risk, then it would not matter if ships are docked or undocked. Undocking always involves risk. Everywhere in Eve. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 09:28:10 - [660] - Quote Two ideas: 1. Probe down afk cloaky camping ships, abeit with a significant entry barrier. 2. Decouple d-scan while cloaked. Both ideas collide with implicit threat (what fozzy called "pretty big psycological effect"). 1. The potential to probe down afk cloaky campers, no matter how difficult it is and how much skill points and isk you need to invest to do so, will destroy afk cloaky camping. People cannot go afk if there is a chance - no matter how small - that their afk cloaked ship might get scanned down and caught. Destorying afk cloaky camping is a bit of an overkill in my opinion. I just want it tempered somewhat. 2. It does not matter if d-scan is inactive while cloaked. Sites can still be inspected manually while cloaked. So it does nothing to foster a perception that undocking is safer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 13:29:56 - [661] - Quote Post reported for abusive tone and adhom Point of order: Goonspace is up to something. Import numbers and rats killed/hr in some areas are...shall we say...outstanding. Ratting in general may be just fine. We don't know. CCP does know. Though rat AI is no doubt due an overhaul soon enough in any event. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 14:19:34 - [662] - Quote Null-sec sov is designed around the concept of peak time. afk cloaky camping is an off-peak issue. Null-sec players have better things to do in their corporation's peak times than rat. Though obviously, afk cloaky camping can dramatically impact on player abilities to fund pvp. ========= We know that a huge chunk of the bounties are being given to very specific areas. Where indeed ratting is way too easy. Its a granular problem. You need data we do not have to see where in null-sec bounty payments are too high. Luckily, CCP has that data. I am actually in favour of tweaking bounties somewhat along with introducing a 5 hour cloak timer (which my suggestion boils down to). Though technically, I wager I favour better rat AI that would in turn translate to lower bounties. Nothing in null-sec is safer than remaining docked up. With the exception of afk cloaky camping. Any change that causes players to undock more is by definition making them less safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 18:10:30 - [663] - Quote Rendering afk redundant by nerfing local will lead to less ships undocking and is entirely contrary to my goal of having more ships undocked. Sov vulnerability windows are designed specifically around peak time windows that teams of players define themselves. Sov is not designed to cater only to organisations that can muster peak activity on a 24/7 schedual. Feel free to disagree on these two points. I will rest assured on my understanding being in line with what CCP knows to be true. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 18:15:16 - [664] - Quote wormhole space population numbers. Lack of real time information available to individual players is something the overwhelming majority of EvE players find incredibly unattractive. But I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am arguing for the benefit of CCP. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 18:49:50 - [665] - Quote Reported above post. Straw man argument. The lack of local is the overwhelming reason the overwhelming majority of EvE players find wormhole space incredibly unappealing. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 19:06:46 - [666] - Quote Reported above post for adhom. Bubbles and destruction without repurcussion does not explain the population disparity between null-sec and wormhole space. Lack of local does. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 19:21:12 - [667] - Quote We will just have to agree to disagree and let CCP be the judge of the merits of our positions. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 19:26:36 - [668] - Quote Reported as off-topic and pestering. Please accept that we must agree to disagree, let CCP make its call on the relative merits of our arguments. And we can move on. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 19:59:07 - [669] - Quote Off topic to request data that ultimately only CCP has. Proof may be in the pudding. But CCP has the pudding and is the arbitrator on the merits of different arguments. Yes, peak time for the player group in question. Like I stated with "designed specifically around peak time windows that players define themselves". "Best idea, make All Cloaking modules require fuel.....strontium (ice products) seems to be CCP's prefered method of use for a great many things these days." That is my conclusion also. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 21:23:43 - [670] - Quote Reported several of the above posts. I am not going to get into a discussion on the relative populations in wormhole and null sec space. It is a side track that derails the actual topic at hand. CCP has the data and can evaluate the arguments presented here based on its data. As an anectdotal point - I find running wormholes between null and high sec far more convenient than using jump freighter services. And have yet to run into anyone...let alone any trouble in my DST and BR. I don't buy the logistics strain argument at all. Asset sharing/theft inherent to POS life may have been a disincentive most of EvE found unappealing in addition to lack of local, but is not longer valid after the introduction of citadelles. Lack of local remains the overwhelming basis for wh space' lack of appeal. Real time information for individual players is vitally important to increasing undock frequencies. Removing local may render afk cloaky camping redundant, but would not contribute to my explicit goal of increasing the number of ships undocked in null-sec space. I find that argument very convincing. Others may disagree. I would urge them to agree to disagree and let CCP evaluate the arguments on their merits. A cloaking module fuel requirement similar to command bursts targets the afk element of afk cloaky camping. It does not nerf other uses of cloaks in any meaningful way. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.09 21:39:15 - [671] - Quote I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the contents of the last two posts and let CCP and the moderator team review the arguments on their merits. I remain convinced that a command burst type charge for cloaking modules is by far the least intrusive way to temper afk cloaky camping somewhat. The reason tempering is desirable is to increase the number of undocked ships in null-sec. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 14:13:22 - [672] - Quote Constant scanning is the result not having real time information from local. Scouting relies on 3rd party applications and any real time information is not universally available to individual players. Local is not a good way to provide individual players with real time information. The Beta map is on the right track and could ideally evolve to supplement or replace other ways of making real time information universally available to individual players. I am sure CCP will figure something out and will figure something out in a way that does not render afk cloaky camping redundant (to drift back on topic). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 17:19:57 - [673] - Quote You cannot just drop the qualifiers and pretend my position is something it is not. Reported. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 19:27:52 - [674] - Quote Of course I was. But fair enough. I can play by any common denominator. Scouts do not work without using 3rd party applications. Do try to keep up. Indeed. The Beta map shows fine promise in replacing not only local as a source of real time information, but also alliance intel channels. I would not hold your breath however. Many other things are obviously a higher priority. Like tempering afk cloaky camping for example. Also, stop thinking you are calling me out on anything besides your own limited understanding of game mechanics. I respect that you understand the game at your own pace, but try not to think everyone belongs in your special category. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 19:43:54 - [675] - Quote Disingenious much? 3rd party coms like TS are required for scouting. But feel free to volunteer to scout on the next fleet you are on and say you are going to type out everything in fleet chat because you are a knowlegable player and scouting only requires the eve client. Tell us how that goes. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:01:25 - [676] - Quote Wow, just wow. COMS ARE 3rd PARTY APPLICATIONS I dare you to join fleets, Offer to scout, and say you that you will only use the ingame client for your communications with the FC. Tell us how that goes. reminds self to never assume malice, when stupidity is sufficient explanation for the crazy crap people type out in this thread " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:13:37 - [677] - Quote Join a fleet, offer to scout without 3rd party coms and see how that goes for you. Tell them 3rd party applications only make things easier, but they are not a requirement. Why are your friends not on comms incidentally? Is not using 3rd party applications one of the requirements you have for that list of things people should use to counter afk cloaky camping? Scouting is in no way, manner or form an accessible alternative to real time information for individual players. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:18:02 - [678] - Quote The Kim jon-un strategy of flying around looking at things? Lets play EvE like that exclusively. It sounds great. To the post above last. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 20:27:01 - [679] - Quote "To post of above last" not equal your post. Do try to keep up. Also, post above yours mentions quite clearly that of course you would scout for yourself. As that was actually what you were describing, but with an imaginary friend proxy. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:06:05 - [680] - Quote Lena 3rd party coms are actually mandatory in null-sec. This requirement underlines serious limitations in access to real time information using the eve client exclusively. Yah, the debate has rotated around command burst charge solution for afk cloaky campers for the last several hundred posts or so. Note that it boils down to a 5 hour timer in practical terms. I agree with the post below yours that afk cloaky camping needs to be tempered somewhat, but not eliminated entirely (imo either by rending redundant, or by nerfing to irrelevance). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:37:25 - [681] - Quote Of course afk cloaky camping can be tempered (nerfed) somewhat without changing local. Stop being silly. Local is however a poor way for individual players to access real time information. The Beta map may be a great way to give not only real time system information, but also consistently reliable updates on any system a player cares to track. Breaking alliance monopolies on larger intelligence networks is to me a good thing that should be seen in connection with changing how real time information is made available to individual players. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:44:05 - [682] - Quote Can you try to refrain from being so temporally challenged? It makes you seem stupid. The beta map system has the potential to replace both local as an information source, and alliance intelligence networks for updates on systems elsewhere. But CCP would need to work on stuff first. Its a thing with F U T U R E potential. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 21:51:02 - [683] - Quote Discussions are by definition dynamic. Do try to keep up. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 22:13:02 - [684] - Quote Which is a silly idea on a number of levels. It renders afk cloaky camping redundant in systems without the device, without giving the perception of security players need to be independently active in null-sec. It does nothing to curtail afk cloaky camping in systems with the device It further cements real time information as being organization based, not individual pilot based. It further cements the non-viability of organizations operating in peak time times instead of 24/7 It does not actually remove local as a source of information, it simply introduces barriers before it functions. It is an incredibly complex and intrusive way of limiting afk cloaky camping and could be dismissed on that grounds alone. The elegant and least intrusive alternative is simply giving cloaking modules a charge requirement (effectively a 5 hour timer). But lets run with the hideously complex alliance catering approarch instead. Its just so full of win. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 22:45:34 - [685] - Quote Surveillance towers in the sense you mean would destory afk cloaky camping. Which in my mind is overkill. He is thinking more along the lines of sov holders paying for something that gives cloaks a timer in specific systems. But that something can only come after real time information has been hideously nerfed in null sec. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.10 23:19:43 - [686] - Quote In null-sec, players should work together in a team effort for mutually supportive actions that are HTFU, non-null bears and don't need crutches like information monopolies or afk cloaky campers to keep their group intact. See what I did there? Did I miss any buzzwords? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 00:32:05 - [687] - Quote In my mind, null-sec should be a collaborative experience with few mechanical barriers giving corporations, alliances, and coalitions automatic monopolies. Groups should be the sum of individual efforts. Not the whim of corporate overlords. I am speaking in a normative sense "what should be". Not what is. Proteus The suggestion you outlined kills the "afk" part of afk cloaky camping. Its a legitimate goal, and it certainly has been mentioned. My feeling is that limited afk cloaky camping is ok, and it would contribute to providing content in null-sec. So I am running with a 5 hour timer and a very short cooldown (whatever time it takes to reload charges into the cloaking module) It is based on the least intrusive nerf I could devise. The end outcome will almost certainly be a lot harsher. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 06:04:10 - [688] - Quote Yah, confirmed. He wants to keep local, except put in a whole bunch of barriers and smack it down firmly as something that organizations control exclusive The worst of all possible worlds. To quote the man in his musings to someone else: "no". Iain He does not want that at all. Can you imagine? Pay isk for complete information control over any system you have. I could support that btw. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 14:44:21 - [689] - Quote Cloaks are not fine, you -c-l-i-m-a-t-e- afk cloaky denier. Stop being silly. afk cloaky camping is generally whim of overlord. Its a moon goo financed project in one way or another. And no, it would be much more of a problem. afk cloaky camping is not a peak time problem. Its a rest of the the time problem. Which is a significant chunck of time for smaller alliances. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 15:44:24 - [690] - Quote People can quite happily PvE to fund their PvP individually or in very small groups if not for afk cloaky campers. So stop being silly with your goonish ideas of what null-sec should be like. Disingenioius much? Or is it a cognitive thing? Malice-stupidity. Its hard to tell, but as a general rule is always best to assume stupid. Afk cloaky camping is a huge problem as it fundamentally screws with null-sec content. Tattoo that on the back of your hand or something if you cannot remember it off-hand. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 16:46:53 - [691] - Quote "Afk cloaky campers [disingenious, stupid, stuff)" afk cloaky camping kills content. Tattoo that to the back of your hand for ease of reference. "In the [blah, blah] in WH living, [blah, blah 3rd party applications, blah, blah]" WH. Enjoy your niche product. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 16:50:32 - [692] - Quote "[stuff]" The only game breaking thing cloaks have going for them is the ability to sustain cloaked status until server shutdown without human input. That has to stop. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 18:19:21 - [693] - Quote Players who refuse to operate in space without total safety kills content. The only such players in game are afk cloaky campers. It has to end. And will end. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 18:49:02 - [694] - Quote What part of "in space" do you not understand? Also, there is no such thing as being in space and 100% safe unless you are afk cloaky camping (even atk cloaky camping has the chance of a misclick or some other human error that gives less than 100% security) This kind of stuff is EvE 101. Players are supposed to know the golden rules before they undock for the first time.... Yet, you buddy...you don't get it. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 18:56:01 - [695] - Quote You say multi billion isk like you think its a lot of money. Poor you. I don't care what atk players do in space. We are speaking here of afk cloaky camping. Not bi-weekly blob events that may or may not arise after weeks of shutting down systems. Enduring afk cloaky camping must end. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 19:06:01 - [696] - Quote The only ones with total safety in space are afk cloaky campers. Even atk cloaky campers run some small risk. Enduring afk cloaky camping kills content. It must end. And will. Its such a no-brainer. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 19:31:14 - [697] - Quote On no local. I rather suspect we will soon see what pseudo sov looks like without local. The rumour mill says Goons are busy buying skill injectors and T3 destroyers for a horde of individual members. That makes Goon sense only if annexing a huge chunk of wh space is on the table. I am not sure what the delay is. Just waiting for the citadels to bulk up their drops when destroyed I imagine. Check the import numbers in their mighty trillions. Lets see how viable the lifestyles of this thread's wh-heroes turn out to be in a sov type kind of warfare. Good luck without local. It will be a blast. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 19:35:18 - [698] - Quote I dont care what atk players do in space. Functional literacy. Such an important, yet underrated skill. No one is 100% safe in space. Ever. Unless afk cloaky camping. This is EvE 101. New players are supposed to know this before undocking for the first time. And yet you...you don't get it. I suggest you direct more of your attention to QA what no local looks like in a sov-like environment. The Goons are going to annex a huge chunk of wh space. Lets see how no local looks in practice against an actually serious foe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 19:38:17 - [699] - Quote What part of afk dont you understand? There is no way for an afk cloaky camper to make a human error BECAUSE NO HUMAN IS AT THE KEYBOARD. Geeze. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 20:01:52 - [700] - Quote If you don't get that by now, then your opinions on this matter can be dismissed entirely. Dismissed. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 20:11:07 - [701] - Quote Familiarize yourself with the Golden rules before pretending to have a clue. could is a conditional. A cloaked player at a deep safe atk is still not 100% safe. A player can screw up in space for as long as he is atk. He is but a misclick away from ramming a station when cloaked at a deep safe. Goons are easy to understand when you get their MOD. The strategic objective is probably something like a monopoly on T3 resources. For generating the big isks and nerfing any attempt the challenge them in wh space. DC lawyers are the best. Anyway, we will see how no local works in a sov-like environment when Goons makes its move. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 20:14:43 - [702] - Quote "Really, when a ship is cloaked how [horseoffal]" If you dont understand how afk cloaky camping works then you have no real business expecting to be taken seriously at all. You are just embarrassing yourself. "So of course local [whine]" Removing local emphases the perception of uncertainty and renders afk cloaky camping redundant. The perception of uncertaintly reduces the number of ships in space at any given time. Sad that you still do not get this. Truly sad. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 20:19:30 - [703] - Quote You just described someone cloaked atk. Which can have an imaginable degree of risk like I have repeatedly posted. Functional literacy. Such an important thing. Since we are making suggestions on what we should be admitting to: Perhaps you should admit you don't read too good. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 20:27:55 - [704] - Quote Because they are in the middle of a blue doughnut, with superblop backup and do ratting at an industrial scale (10s of thousands of npc kills/hr). Get your goonlore right. Yah, too bad the funding for roams like that is gone now that CCP took the lottery isk. You did know that, right? You know perfectly well I am not advocating a huge nerf to afk cloaky camping. The 5 hour timer simply tempers it slightly to allow for individual and very small gang stuff in off peak times to become viable (this is pretty important for alphas in null sec too. They need to be able to undock in their crap ships if we want the rejuvinating effect CCP is hoping for). Which in turn gives more ships in space. Which makes small gang roams more viable. Not everything has to be on an epic scale all the time. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 21:04:29 - [705] - Quote nul-sec activity is divided between peak and off-peak times. Peak times are used for epic pvp Off-peak times are used by individual players or very small groups to generate income to fund epic pvp. The relationship between the two is the main reason I only want a afk cloaky camping tempered somewhat. It should remain a tool in the sov war kit that can harrass pvp revenue generation, but with some minimum level of effort at somewhat higher levels than today. That was the reason for why any afk cloaky camping. This is the reason for why less of it: It kills content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 21:43:24 - [706] - Quote Try not to hurt yourself thinking up those summaries of yours. Nothing in space save afk cloaky camping is 100% risk free. Nothing is safer than remaining docked up. I want to see more ships getting killed. For that to happen, they must undock. Afk cloaky camping contributes to less ships undocking and getting killed. The practice makes null-sec safer. There is absolutely no way you are going to be able to understand this. In fact, don't even try. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.11 22:08:20 - [707] - Quote Thank you! I was afraid you might hurt yourself trying. What? Go on fleets? And leave this fun discussion behind? I think not. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 04:36:55 - [708] - Quote "Disagree" Well, duh. Luckily for me, all opinions are not created equal. A 5 hour timer is not a cloak nerf. Its an afk nerf. Which is required. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 04:58:21 - [709] - Quote No. It is required Because content. You will see. And I will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh. It will be quite distasteful frankly. Which I suppose may be one slight argument against introducing a 5 hour timer. You do have that argument. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 05:57:48 - [710] - Quote Nah, its off-peak time. So nothing to do in null-sec that I have not already taken care of. Besides cloaky camp. But I could post her and do that at the same time (which coincides with a nice selection bias in this thread. You can say what you want about afk cloaky campers, but they do have enough time on their hands to whine on and on and on about how their lifestyle deserves special protection). My ranking is actually pretty decent. Which illustrates quite firmly how disasterously afk cloaky camping kills content. The level of your being wrong is laughable. So of course I will laugh when the cloak nerf comes to pass. It may not be my 5 hour timer tweak. It will probably be something far more intrusive. afk cloaky camping kills content So will be fixed. Deal with it and HTFU. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 10:42:23 - [711] - Quote "Last I checked..." Anything that increases undock frequencies makes null-sec less safe. Nothing is as safe as being docked save afk cloaky camping. Anyone who thinks docked ships in afk cloaky camped systems is good needs to HTFU. "Does anyone..." The thread has a cyclic pattern. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 11:53:34 - [712] - Quote Oh Gawd. Functional literacy. So important. So undervalued. Again: A 5 hour timers gives afk cloaky campers the choice of logging off, or risking that they might not be back in time to reload the cloak module. Content points: Afk cloaky camper logs off - PvE content PvE players react appropriately to hostile entry in system - Pvp content PVE players fail to react appropriately when hostile enter system - Pvp content 5 hour, 10 hour, 15, hour 20 hour - players can attempt to probe system to find decloaked camper - Pvp content (probing) Afk cloaky camper decloaked due to inactivity and probbed down - Pvp content Afk cloaky camper traps probbing players by feigning timer decloak, then bloping inwarping probers - Pvp content This is not exactly rocket science. I wait with bated breath for your regurgitation of invalid counterarguments. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 13:59:36 - [713] - Quote You are doing a poor job of demonstrating reading comprehension. But I worry more about your reading retention. I have no issue with something better than local giving free and comprehensive information to individual players for as long as that information system is not a corporate monopoly. Players who dislike local as a source of real time information n can always live in wormhole space. CCP has created a niche environment with limitations of that type for players who like it (or liked it until Goons steamrolled their ecosystems into oblivium. Content events on a massive scale pending:). I have been quite clear that my modest, least intrusive suggestion is far from the only measure CCP can embrace. In fact, my expectation is that CCP intervention will be far, far more intrusive. Nor have I ignored relevant feedback. The entrenched horseoffal you keep repeating is however not relevant feedback. Not that I ever tire of dismissing it of course. Players screw up. Which will give more kills. I have 0 expectations of changing player nature, but great expectations of the number of screw ups being a function of undocked ships. More ships undocked, more screw ups. But content is not limited to pvp that generates kills. Everyone knows that. Quality gate crashing is one example of no kill content. Managing to get to safety before a shotgunning gang can catch you is also content for both parties. Player interaction does not have to take place on grid. For as long as it takes place in space (for the purposes of my argument). If you are not at your computer, you should probably not be undocked. That is true for all decent playing styles except Enduring afk cloaky camping. It must end. Because content. Stop cockblocking, bro. Grow a pair. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 15:40:16 - [714] - Quote You reposted a link I already dismissed that had absolutely no relevance to the passage you quoted. You might as well have linked to a picture of a kitten. You are underlining the concern I have about the state of your functional literacy. Again: "could" is conditional. It could work. It could not work. Who knows? And it is incorrect. A player cloaked at a secret safespot is not 100% safe. One misclick and the ship bumps a station. The secret safespot may not be secure. The only way to be 100% safe in space is to be afk cloaky camped (and non stationary - slowboat rolling safe). It is important to remove human error as a factor if you want to be safe. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 19:04:43 - [715] - Quote "would it not be more likely...." No. But thank you for sharing how little you understand this game. "You ranking is...." OMG. At least have the courage of your convictions. HTFU. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 21:11:09 - [716] - Quote Reading comprehension. Its so important. Try to stop failing at it. It makes you look silly. I just documented I was in a fleet that got two bounties. And yah, I see that you do not pvp much if you think being an F1 monkey is the only role people have in fleets (I have never bothered to check your z-board, because frankly I don't care what you do or do not do). I am in the top quintile of most active pvp players even just by using the kill metric from z-boards. The threshold is very low. afk cloaky camping is by definition not pvp. I am calling for changes to the afk contribution to cloaky camping. Which specifically is not pvp. Worthless git drinking another beer at the pub versus player perhaps. But not player versus player. And no, it does not work that way. How does CCP staff do on the z-killboards? You know. The developers. And perhaps try holding your breath and spamming the refresh button on z-boards. There will be more kills there any time now. Just hold your breath and spam that refresh button to see. And hold that hoop up high. I am sure to jump through it any moment now. Just because you tell me to. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 22:05:00 - [717] - Quote My ranking is actually listed on z-board. I am in the top quintile of EvE players. I don't give a rats ass if you take me seriously our not. You are not the choir I am preaching to. The merits of the agument are independent of F1 button bashing. Trolling? You say that a lot. Not true. Just because you are frustrated, does not mean you have been trolled. A null bear looking for nerfs would be looking at a different solution than I am. A 5 hour timer has significant statistical impact on content in null-sec, but would not change day-to-day null-bearing in any significant way. (I would actually not want any changes to cloaks, and would rather be arguing that insta locking should end and that BRs need a buff. The moon-goo must flow and nanite repair paste must run and all that. The dime and nickel stuff is for younger characters. Barring goon style industrial organization of ratting of course). So read my lips: I don't care what you think beyond what limited feed back of value you might provide. I read your posts carefully enough on the off-chance there might be some actual content. Even a blind hen finds grain occassionally. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.12 23:45:26 - [718] - Quote What hyperbole. Borderline hysteria even. And yet, I am in the top quintile my total number of kills places me there. Its a low threshold. Which is in part the fault of afk cloaky camping. There are lots of ways to pvp that does not show up on any killboard. I was party to two kills today. Meaning I was in the same systems in the same fleet that killed two players that had bounties (I posted the concord emails earlier). How could that possibly have happened? What roles could I possibly have been doing? I am looking to make ratting less safe than it is now by increasing the number of ships that actually undock. Because content. You don't get it, so assume malice and ulterior motives. Which is always a mistake. At least have the common cognition to assume stupidity. Stupidity is usually the case when people don't get it. I should know. I have been dealing with the non-malice thingy for 100ds and 100ds of posts. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.13 00:54:56 - [719] - Quote lulz@the "make mommy proud Honey Boo-Boo" school of debating techniques. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.13 01:16:41 - [720] - Quote My techniques are actually very dynamic and quite sophisticated (within reason. This is not a scholarly paper after all). But I respect your right to not see that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.13 16:44:37 - [721] - Quote No. Dismissing opinions on their demerits is not equal to ignoring them. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.13 23:24:10 - [722] - Quote Well, since I am arguing for a change to cloaking mechanisms, would it not be uhm, more rational of you to demand that I prove I use cloaks? I would give as many rats asses about your Honey Boo-Boo approach to discussion. But at least you would seem slightly more rational. Heaven knows that is a worthy goal to strive for. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 00:32:14 - [723] - Quote No. My goal is that CCP slap a 5 hour timer on the cloak modules. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 06:58:57 - [724] - Quote Listed many times oh disingenious one. The problem is mainly that of reading retention. Posters read the demerits, and still regurgitate their tired old opinions without modification. I can repost them again in reponse to future posts. Since it seems to be by popular demand and all. ============ Lets take our young friend by her word. I am a nullbear/semi-active (at best) forum warrior. Well, I am still ranked 11540th most active pvp last 7 days (52kth/90 days, 162kth/alltime). Which underlines my point that afk cloaky camping kills content and has to change. As to the argument of 100% safe. My kill board has two screwups in the last two days of PvE ships that were shotgunned and caught in small gang roams (the catch was actually much higher, but I joined the fleet late. It was a corp thing, so you can validate if you like). So that argument is disproven. People make mistakes and will be caught if only they undock. They do not undock when afk cloaky camped. Therefore, anyone interested in more pvp in nullsec Will favour a tempered afk cloaky camp nerf. Its fine to not want more pvp. Btw. But try to formulate your alternate goal clearly. Edit Don't try sarcasm, friend. You are not very good at it. Protip; when you have to type "look at me, I am using sarcasm", then you are doing it wrong. Also, math fail. Rankings are not linear. You can easily check what your 2k kills rank you as. All time top 60kth or something? " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 16:56:54 - [725] - Quote "You got more [tripe]" Not a single ship more died in the last few days than would otherwise have been the case (I may have saved a friendly inty, but that is doubtful). The sorry state of pvp in EvE always had me as a top quintile pvp player (as the ranking shows). Afk cloaky camping desperately needs a nerf to support content by increasing undocking frequencies in null-sec and making ships far more unsafe than they are today. The absolute minimum intervention is introducing a command burst charge system giving cloaking modules in effect a 5 hour timer. A rough estimate suggests there is currently a 2 trillion isk shortfall/month of destroyed ships (100ds of more ships a day need to die to keep hangar content stockpiles stable). A nerf sooner, rather than later, would be nice. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 17:44:31 - [726] - Quote Top quintile. As the kill board shows. Pathetic, you say. But that is the sorry state of pvp in Eve. Afk cloaky camping needs a 5 hour timer nerf at the bare minimum - sooner, if not before. Making ships in null-sec much more unsafe. Because they will undock more. Your not seeing this just proves the perception of safety is more important than actual safety. And that a slight nerf to afk cloaky camping will be seen as making null-sec safer, when in fact it becomes less safe. Incidentally, this goes for local buffs too. Real time information in null-sec needs to be enhanced slightly to break alliance monopolies on multi system early warnings and give individual players a perception of greater safety. So that they undock more. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 18:02:32 - [727] - Quote It places me in the top quintile, if not the top decimal. I find it amusing that you struggle so with understanding the data the killboards provide. Introducing the perception of more risk will decrease the number of undocked ships and increase the number of ships enjoying absolutely safety in their docking bays. Making null-sec a lot more safe by virtue of making it a lot more empty. 1 ship is currently dying for every 3 ships that should die to give a better balance between end production and space destruction in EvE. So, not only does afk cloaky camping need to be nerfed Real time information sources need to be enhanced. In order to foster a perception of greater safety so that more ships undock and become vulnerable to pvp. So not only are you wrong. You are 180 degrees wrong. EvE development needs to go in the opposite way that you want. But by all means. Keep your niche wormhole space environment. Far be it for me to dictate how things should be in the space you play in. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 18:27:29 - [728] - Quote Woot@taking personally. I am simply pointing out that I am at the very least in the top quintile (that means the top 5th, or top 20%) of EvE player pvp experience. I also find it sweet that you are suggesting I am one of CCPs most prized customers who has maintained a subcription over 8 years and paid the company 1000nds of dollars over the years (In truth, I might be pushing 750 bucks - all purchases included. I don't really want to know the exact number...lest my wife find out). Its adorable that you maintain I have been checking out the status of pvp with 2 monthly kills on average, and have a extremely good timeline understanding of what pvp was, is, and should become. But to recap Nothing is safer in null-sec than remaining docked. Null-sec becomes less safe as more players undock and spend time in space. A perception of safety leads to players undocking more often. Nerfing afk cloaky camping increases the perception of safety. Buffing real time information sources increases the perception of safety. Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing real time information sources must be done sooner, rather than later. Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 18:52:29 - [729] - Quote Why yes. Someone with a 1000 kills would be ranked far higher than me, and would be in the top single % of players. I am merely ranked in the top quintile (or perhaps top decimal). I am a very experienced pvp'er compared to everyone else who has played EvE. The rankings do not lie. But again, If you want more pvp and kills in null-sec, then Buff local (break the alliance monopoly and inter system intel) Nerf afk cloaky camping. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 19:34:22 - [730] - Quote Again. I have hunted more than 80% of everyone who has played Eve. Probably closer to 90% of everyone that has played Eve. I have an impressive killboard compared to most EvE players. There is no such thing as risk free PvE. This is EvE 101. Ships are less safe in space than they are docked. That is simply how EvE is. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 19:55:49 - [731] - Quote Congratz. You too are in the top quintile, if not the top decimal. Granted, its not much of an achievement. And afk cloaky camping plays are part in how little of EvE game play actually involves pvp. Hence the need to nerf afk cloaky camping and buffing local (technically creating alternate ways for players to consistently access real time information independent of alliances). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 20:59:00 - [732] - Quote The board does not measure skill. We simply have more experience than at least 80% of other EvE players. Which is not much to brag about given the absolutely horrendous levels of pvp in general. Buffing local is not new. I have been talking about improving real time information availability for individual players independent of alliance filters for quite some time now. Anything that increases the perception of safety makes null-sec less safe. No such thing as risk free PvE. You are really going to have to try and wrap your head around this one at some point. But thank you for validating the perception that nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local will make null-sec more safe. If you think that is true, then doubtless many others will believe it too. Brilliant! Its exactly that kind of perception that will encourage people to undock their ships more often and put them in harm's way. Because nothing is safer than being docked up And Because content. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 22:34:20 - [733] - Quote You are being irrational. If you can get away 100% of the time now, then what would a nerf of afk cloaky camping and buff of local achieve? Bingo You can still only get away 100% of the time. 100% being the maximum % you can get away with. Your argument fails on its lack of internal logic. ========= Things going wrong is a function of ships undocked. More ships undocked equals more ships killed. More ships undocked equals less safe null-sec. For nothing is as safe as remaining docked. Because content. ============= Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local Gives more ships undocked Which equals more ships killed More ships undocked equals less safe null-sec For nothing is as safe as remaining docked Because content ============ Its not exactly rocket science. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.14 23:49:51 - [734] - Quote Anyways, I understand that it is gratifying to assume malice and self-interest. But the fact of the matter is that pvp is very uncommon. To the point where even lethargic efforts place players like me and Sonya in the top quintile of pvp players. This is a disaster. A balance between end product production and kills would have to see kills treble from today's numbers (1 trillion destroyed, 3 trillion produced). The only way to achieve a better balance is to enact measures that see players undock more often. CCP can do some things: Replacing outside lotteries with very clever mining rats is one variant. Rats are obviously going to be killing more ships come tomorrow. Players can joins some of the mining corps already, so we will see if that spills over to null-sec. Meaning of course that you can mine with your very own rat escort. Or you have a procedural small gang you can mine with, and a procedural back up fleet in case you are attacked. That is what the doctors in this thread ordered, right? Of course you can pve for as long as you have back up. The perception of safety, without being more safe. It gives more pvp. Safer pve is not my goal. More ships undocked and vulnerable to pvp is my goal. Because content. I can incidentally claim independent discovery on the mining rat change that is coming in tomorrow. I raised that as an option a while back before my hiatus in this thread. Yay, me. Procedural rats are incidentally also the way to lower bounty payouts. A wave of rats losing a battle could always warp off, then re-enter the chain of rooms the normal way like any decent human would. Destroying MTUs and rejoining their mates still fighting by entering through the accelerators. For example. What fun. Or why not let players blue to rats hang out at sites and wait for whatever comes? No need for rats to do blue on blue until they are attacked, right? The opportunities are endless...But first we need players to undock a lot more often. To achieve that we need: 1. Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5 hour timer) 2. Buffed Local (alliance independent real time information). Because content, silly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.15 01:22:21 - [735] - Quote 1. Peak time epic PvP (it does not get more epic that blowing up two citadels). 2. Found a pve player in a system that was not cloaky camped. The player screwed up and died. When I said that player kills are 1/3 of what they should be for a better balance between production and losses, I did not say player kills = 0. I meant that afk cloaky camping keeps players safe by keeping then snugly docked up. Nerf afk cloaky campers (with a 5 hour timer) and see more ships undocked in systems not cloaky camped to give more burning wrecks (or whatever wrecks will do tomorrow after the update). Its all about creating the perception of safety. Null sec is never actually safe. So: Nerf afk cloaky camping (with a 5 hour timer) Buff local (with an alliance independent real time intelligence system) .... Profit (because content) " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.15 02:38:34 - [736] - Quote I am glad you think you are good at something. Because written words are certainly not your friends. Let me explain my position to you yet again. For I am charitable like that: My goal is for more ships to undock in null sec because more undocked ships give more chances to kill ships in null sec. Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5hr timer) and buffed local (independent real time information) achieve that goal. Now that I have checked for June 2016 (its the month I found wh data for): wh space 23000 ships destroyed 6000 pods destroyed null sec 264000 ships destroyed 152000 pods destroyed Yah, there is not much to be gained from hyping wormholes. Even doubling the kills there per month would not amount to anything other than a slight statistical anomaly (and if fights happen there all the time...then perhaps stop arming your ships with fireworks launchers...because very little is dying per day in wh space). I do want it to be psychologically easier to undock and I certainly want it to be easier to catch ships. Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local are just tools to that end. You should lay of the cool aid. My suggestions are not worth the high drama and hyperbole. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.15 20:11:30 - [737] - Quote The chance of an undocked pve ship getting killed per hour will not change in any significant way. afk cloaky campers are hideously inefficient hunters. Its inherent to afk. The player is not around, or can't be arsed, or his back-up can't be arsed every time a ship undocks to pve in a cloaky camped system. What increases is the number of hours a ship is undocked. So yah, if the isk/hr earning stays the same, then pve pilots will net more isk every month. I am in favour of lower isk/hr revenue. Though preferrably in a targetted way that lowers the extreme earning outliers. Its a philosophical choice. If you want more ships undocked in space, then you will also have more ships undocked in space doing pve. You caught the point of local needing a buff (alliance independent real time information)? For example that any system jump within x gates gives a toggable newsfeed flash "6 neuts in xx-x (3 jumps)". Something like that (its just a conceptual outline of what I am thinking of). " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.15 21:44:00 - [738] - Quote Income denial is indeed a valid form gameplay. But not 0 effort, 0 risk income denial. I am not using hyperbole here. Afk cloaky camping is 0 effort, 0 risk. Maintaing the viability of income denial is the main reason why I think afk cloaky camping should be tempered, and not terminated (so a 5 hour timer. Not a device that can scan down cloaked ships). I maintain that the risk per hour remains the same. Its the overall income that would increase as the result of pve ships being undocked more often and for longer periods of time. I am not adverse to adjusting bounties (through weighted towards targeting high revenue generating outlier ratting strategies). Yah, I tried arguing for quite some time that changes to local is a distinct and separate discussion from afk cloak camping. Deserving perhaps its own thread. Poster here did not agree, so I went with the flow. In a contrarian way. But still. I kind of liked the standing aware element of it. Just the kind of newsflash you get in combat anyway (damage 658), but with real time information in nearby systems. So unavailable if you are docked up (to add another element to why undocking is good). You may have missed the portion of the discussion, but the pvp portion of EvE is disasterously low. Very little effort is required to become a top quintile pvp'er (measured by activity). I see the need to treble ships killed in the game (for better balance between production and destruction is the reason I chose that threshold). Its quite upsetting frankly. EvE data sort of like sausages. The less you know about whats in them, the better. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 03:05:16 - [739] - Quote Don't be silly, little gander. I regularly use wormholes to occator to high-sec. Its the safest thing since sliced toast. Always empty you see. Technically, its the constant whaming the d-scan button to compensate for lack of local that causes people to leave wh space. Cheer up, little miss discontent. I am not suggesting the end of the world. "Ahhh....." You are still failing@sarcasm, friend. Protip; if you have to use emoticons to denote "look at me, I am doing sarcasm", then you are doing it wrong. My 5 hour timer suggestion only tempers afk cloaky camping somewhat, so the impact is pretty marginal to start off with. Include afk cloaky camping's hideous inefficiency in generating kills per hour, and presto... My statement becomes a probable outcome. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 07:02:12 - [740] - Quote The discussion evolves. That is the nature of discussions. I am talking about one change: Give cloak modules a 5 hour timer. Preferably by introducing a command burst charge type ammunition requirement. The expected effect is a reduction in the number of systems camped in null sec at any given time. This translates to increased numbers of ships undocked in null sec at any given time. I favour reducing total bounty payments slightly primarily by targeting outlier high isk ratting schemes. I would prefer procedural solutions (less rats die because they adapt to ratting techniques. The also corresponds with an expectation that more ships would die in pve due to rats being smart). I expect stable or reduced total monthly bounty payments. Which is currently way too high. So the impact does not need to surgical in nature for as long as its within a give or take single digit trillion range per month. I expect somewhat more ship losses, but no where near the trebling of current numbers to give balance between production and destruction. This to is not an exact science because ship losses currently are way too low. Any increase is dandy. I expect somewat more pvp. Which also does not need to be defined beyond noting that today's numbers also are way too low. You are again making the mistake of wanting to overspecify variables when it is not required. Be carefull with that. It leads to decisionmaking paralysis. More ships will die, there will be more pvp, bounties will remain stable or fall. Which is good because Way too few ships die, there is way too little pvp, and bounties are way too high. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 14:28:19 - [741] - Quote Thank you for sharing your opinions. They are always welcomish! Ship deaths are a function of undocked ships, not the function of imaginary personality traits. This due to human error. Everyone screws up sometimes. But to use your terms. People can ignore local a lot more frequently than they ignore afk cloaky campers. afk cloaky camping relies on habituation, and that by definition takes time. Ignoring local relies on things like biobreaks and kitttens on youtube. Which happen all the time. The local buff simply is a poor mirror of what alliance intel channels and 3rd party applications do. Don't worry. I was thinking it a gate flash entry trigger thing. Not an in-system head count, nor a wormhole entry counter. You might say it relies on habituation. But a ratter warping off every time a red or neut jumps into a neigbouring system is never going to get much ratting done at all. So its fine. A good tool to help people who want to find fights....find fights. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 17:52:07 - [742] - Quote You are very welcome, dearest friend! fail@sarcasm, again. You suck at it if you need to use emoticons. Just rephase or delete any text you feel the need to support with an emoticon. It will help you write better. If writing better is a goal you have. I responded to your concerns. Too bad the response fell out of your selective quotation somehow. Edit Response to "never been in wormholes". Been there. They are deader than any flogged horse in this thread. As demonstrated by actual statistics for june of 2016 earlier. You probably should not take responses to hyperbole as a serious point. Doing that makes you look silly. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 18:12:25 - [743] - Quote Statistics show that pvp levels in wormholes is 10% of that in nullsec. As demonstrated in june 2016 statistics. Wormhole space cannot contribute significantly to increasing PvP in EvE. The baseline there is way too low. Even significant percentage increases in wormhole pvp would not contribute meaningfully to overall increases in pvp in EvE. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 19:37:43 - [744] - Quote The lesson is that PvP in wormhole space is less than 10% of PvP in null-sec. It draws no destinction between corporations involved. Ask your parents for help if you have trouble understanding this. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 20:14:04 - [745] - Quote "I am a bit confused" Indeed! I am quite impressed by your inability to understand the argument I am making. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 20:28:38 - [746] - Quote That would be incorrect. Afk cloaky camping does not make pve unsafe. It makes pve not happen. Which is fine to a certain degree (hence my arguing for afk cloaky camping to be tempered, not destroyed). Tempering afk cloaky camping will certainly lead to ships undocking more often, and spending more time in space when undocked. This in turn will increase total PvE revenue as the total ship hours of PvE will increase. Which is why I have argued for changing net bounty payments in some manner before changing afk cloaky camping. I pre-empted the CCPs keynote speech where this was mentioned in Las Vegas, but that is nothing to brag about. Anyone who can read the monthly economic rapports knew about there being issues with bounties. What people seem to be missing is the huge inbalance between production and destruction in EvE. The data is interesting because it shows pretty clearly that ship losses should at least treble to give a greater degree of harmony and avoid rediculous levels of asset accumulation (its long past the point were "fly only what you can afford to lose" sets very few practical limitations on the ships players can fit and fly). More ships have to die. Tempering afk cloaky camping plays a part in that. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 20:30:17 - [747] - Quote Sure they do. Because wormhole mechanics suck for the purposes of PvP. This is why a change to local has to be careful in giving wormhole denizens an advantage when they enter null-sec. I have you covered in my suggestion that the reporting system ("4 neuts entered xx-x (3 jumps away") should be gate triggered and not be a headcount of ships in the system, or ships entering through wormholes. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 20:35:19 - [748] - Quote Your ingame character sure whines a lot. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.16 21:22:24 - [749] - Quote Not so much pretending as believing that some poor intern has to shuffle through this manure of a thread looking for valid perspectives. I win every time that happens. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.16 23:03:09 - [750] - Quote Teckos Pech Take a step back and review the thread with a degree of detachment. See? I have made several solid cases. You can disagree on principle (for example that income supression is more important than increased pvp volume) if you insist. As to the purpose of it all: We have a choice of believing two things: 1. CCP does review this thread in some way occassionally and does use it as inspiration for brainstorming sessions. 2. The thread is a safety-valve epeen flame-fest. Either is fine with me. And both are likely true. So the best of all possible worlds. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.16 23:50:49 - [751] - Quote Cydonia Meridian The problem with nerfing hotdrops is that doing so promotes a certain kind of pve that is almost certainly responsible for excessive total bounty payments already (1% of ships ratting on an industrial scale claiming 30% of the total bounty payments. Or whatever. The income inequality distribution is in that ball-park certainly). Nickel-dime ratters worry about much smaller things than being hotdropped. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.17 01:15:14 - [752] - Quote "How do you know..." Local currently gives players real time information for they systems they are in . "Oh no..." Using third party applications to log off would just buy a 5 hour grace period. Instead of the current maximum of 23.5 hours. So a dramatic improvement in any case. The main issue right now is discrepency between production and destruction. About 3 times as many destroyed ships would give a better balance. I have mentioned many times now that CCP would be well advised to examine the income inequality distribution from non-incursion bounties and use procedural changes to ratting behaviour to target the 1% highest bounty income pilots. I rather suspect that progressive bounty income targeting would reduce bounty payouts to acceptable levels. I have nothing to admit to. I deal with relevant points as they arise and change my position as warranted from relevant feedback. The main problem in this discussion are posters are unable or unwilling to take note of my revisions. "So basically..." I have been quite clear on my willingness to cater to the lowest common denominator when the inclination strikes me. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.17 01:28:47 - [753] - Quote hehe, I don't think laughing at me for weeks caused those bald spots on your scalp. I have made substantial points. Your position has also been clear and I have repeatedly shown that catering to your desires would not increase the volume of pvp in EvE. Its fair enough that you do not want the volume of PvP to increase, even if your justification is that suppressing income is more important than increased pew-pew. In sum; I have been taking you more seriously than you take yourself. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.17 01:47:31 - [754] - Quote Perhaps resculp your picture to show the "after meth" effects this discussion has had on your character's well-being. If you want to assign me ulterior motives, then at least try to do it convincingly. Who gains from increased pew-pew and trebling of ship destruction that I seem to be promoting? Well, industrialists of course. But like I said, I take you more seriously than you take yourself. Edit And change the characters damned t-shirt while you are resculpting. It has been wearing the same one for months. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 14	Posted - 2016.11.17 04:20:06 - [755] - Quote Thats not what happened here, dear. " We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..." -Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 16	Posted - 2016.12.01 12:21:18 - [756] - Quote Baltec The problem actually starts and ends with afk cloaky camping. Afk is fine (its punished one way or another in any sector of space) Cloaky is fine. Camping is fine. The problem is that the combination of those 3 elements is extremely detrimental (defined here as killing activity). Its classical OP abuse. Things in combination have extremely undesirable effects. Nerfing local would also kill activity (killing activity to stop killing activity is not a solution) and would have to be seen in conjuction with nerfing gates in any event. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 19	Posted - 2016.12.01 13:43:36 - [757] - Quote Xcom PvE revenue is of course best addressed directly and at the source of abuse. Last month's data shows very high bounty payments for example, and by cross referencing with dotlan, it becomes clear that the technique used is specific to a handful of systems deep inside a blue doughnut. It has no relevance to null-sec in general, and no relevance to afk cloaky camping in particular. Fundamentally, afk cloaky camping is bad because it removes access to content. Which is the same reason nerfing local is bad, as that also removes access to content. This is more true after the introduction of alpha clones. High sec has suddenly become the premier location for pvp content (measured in ship losses). Which suggests huge accessibility issues to content in null sec. Something has to be done to make null-sec more accessible. Fixing afk cloaky camping is part of that something. Nerfing local is not part of that something. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 19	Posted - 2016.12.01 22:22:49 - [758] - Quote Baltec It starts when people log on. So we should definately nerf that. Or wait. Afk cloaky camping is in fact a counter to people logging on. Mission accomplished. Now if we could only get them to log on less, then mission would be even more accomplished. You are reposting the same old tired arguments. They were not convincing the first time. Afk cloaky camping does nothing that cloaky camping cannot do. The only difference is the player effort involved. I can imagine a system where both nerfed versions of gates and local were made available. But would consider it as a means of rejuvinating wormhole space. So player constructed gates that can be turned off in wormhole space and player constructed "local" arrays that can be turned off in wormhole space. But not for nullsec. You don't fix something by breaking it even more. Afk cloaky camping breaks activity. Nerfing local would break it even more. So no way, jose. Sorry. Kojee Player triggered decloaking devices would certainly put an end to afk cloaky camping. Which is one way of doing it. A bit dramatic as it would probably put an end to more than afk cloaky camping. But you cannot make lemonade without breaking eggs. Or words to that effect. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 19	Posted - 2016.12.02 06:51:05 - [759] - Quote You could also just run with the a cloaking device dramatically lowering a ship's Full Spectrum Cross Signal FSCS (same as Radar Cross Signal, except for everything) reduces signal radius for purposes of dscan and lock time not reduced for combat calculations (ie does not reduced damage) * Visually very difficult to see (but possible) T2 ships' descan immunity changes to descan reduction (much harder to find on dscan) mode becomes passive, not active * combat penalties (severely reduced scan resolution, occupied high slot, severely decreases target's signal radius) Harder to scan down functions moved from seabos to cloaks seabos improve dscan quality *Dscan range information tweaked from absolute to approximate as a function of target's descan return. There. Something for everyone ATK. Nothing for anyone AFK. Edit Liked som posts. Because I can (ty brokk for telling me the adblocker was screwing with that). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 22	Posted - 2016.12.02 10:23:27 - [760] - Quote Kobol If indeed you are irrelevant, then afk cloaky camping can clearly be completely dispensed with as it has no relevance to game. You are arguing in favour of a serious nerf to cloaking mechanics. I am pretty sure that is unintentional. You may want to revise your position. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 13:58:46 - [761] - Quote It has to change now that alpha clones are a thing. A lot of the trollol suggestions (first we need global peace, then we can look at afk cloaky camping) are actually not terrible ideas for wormhole space (which are lacking a certain penache to become mainstream habitable). For example player deployable (and destroyable) gates and local intel generators. I do like the idea of a minigame rotating around scanning down afk cloaky campers. But the trick is for it to be a game with play and counter play. So totally screwing the AFK, and totally engaging the ATK players involved. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 16:37:14 - [762] - Quote Baltec It happens because the mechanisms allow it to happen without cost. So we are gunning for that. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 17:11:18 - [763] - Quote Already answered many, many times. We want to get rid of the afk part of afk cloaky camping - or make it as risky as any afk activity should be in hostile null sec space (far be it from me to physically stop anyone from going afk and losing ships). ATK cloaky camping is incidentally at least as effective as afk cloaky camping. If you are willing to put in the effort. If unwilling, then sucks to be you I suppose. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 17:44:17 - [764] - Quote baltec You have the right to your opinion buddy. Its a very tired, old opinion, but you have every right to it. Its been answered many times. Its a poor idea because it will kill activity in null sec (the whole point of killing afk cloaky camping is to increase activity). Reversing the thought might work. By seeing that wormhole space is dead and allowing for player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel channel generators to be deployed. In effect allowing for the change you want in a sector of space that really needs some help. You see? Answered again. I prefer the direct approach to wiping out afk cloaky camping by making going afk in hostile null-sec space a really silly thing to do no matter if your ship is cloaked or uncloaked. Like it should be. If you cannot put in the effort, then its not something worth doing. To get around intel provided by local; go to wormhole space. Your problem is solved. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 18:22:41 - [765] - Quote Baltec ATK cloaky camp is a perfectly good counter to activity in a system for as long as you can be bothered to do it. Or go to wormhole space where local is not an issue if you prefer to play without local. Very few people like to play without local. You see? Answered again. Either be ATK in nullsec, or do whatver in wormhole space that has the environment you want (no local). Dead in sense that no one dies there. It has 10% of null-sec ship losses for a comparable number of systems. It needs a buff. Player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel structures may fit the ticket. But that is hardly a concern for this thread. In sum: AFK anything is not an an acceptable counter to anything. Anyway, this is boring. Am adding you to my blocked list. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 24	Posted - 2016.12.02 18:42:29 - [766] - Quote Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying. Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose. This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end. More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 28	Posted - 2016.12.02 19:37:40 - [767] - Quote Dracvlad I agree. I think there is a stong case to be made that ship losses are a function of time in space. The more time atk players spend undocked in null-sec for any reason (except afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is such a glaring exception to virtually any rule), the more ships will be lost. A million ship hours undocked with see twice the kills as 500 000 ship hours undocked. Afk cloak camping can easily be seen as part of an analysis of barriers that deflate total atk ship hours in space. Which of course is a very strong argument for removing the afk portion of the equation. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 28	Posted - 2016.12.02 20:00:30 - [768] - Quote Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men. FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED. Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error. I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned. The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 32	Posted - 2016.12.03 11:27:32 - [769] - Quote Everyone makes mistakes. Careful pilots might screw up 1% of the time. Careless pilots might screw up 10% of the time. New pilots might screw up 100% of the time. Every encounter in null-sec is based on at least one of the parties having made a mistake. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 32	Posted - 2016.12.03 14:00:21 - [770] - Quote Afk cloaky campers also rely on people making mistakes. Its just that afk cloaky campers wait with 0 effort and while waiting lay waste to activity in huge parts of the EvE ecosystem. It really does need to be fixed as soon as possible. The counter to people making mistakes is to be ATK and in hostile space. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 34	Posted - 2016.12.03 17:10:09 - [771] - Quote Dracvlad Details do indeed matter :-). Its a blue doughnut thing. Large ratting fleets targetting individual systems with cap back up. Its a problem best fixed by specifically targetting the industrial scale technique used. The specific systems and total npc kills can be seen on dotlan statistics. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 34	Posted - 2016.12.04 12:46:59 - [772] - Quote Kobol It depends on what your goal is. My goal is to increase activity in null-sec. Nerfing local would break my goal in a manner worse than afk cloaky camping breaks it. I would support introducing Sov systems accessible only by player build jump bridges (wormholes, cynos) that initially have no local, but where local intelligence arrays can be deployed. A new ecosystem with mechanics somewhere between null-sec and wormhole space in other words. A 15 minute timer is no local to all intents and purposes (or worse than no local if only defenders show up on it). No local is actually the counter to safety inherent to no gates. So needs to be considered from a gate perspective (there is also the EvE lore argument that free gates and free local are inherent to empire services). But the no local concept has not been much of a success in wormhole space if population is a metric. I floated a compromise suggestion earlier (you can afk for 5 hours, but have to log on then to refresh the cloak). Afk cloaky camper proponents found the demand too strenuous. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 35	Posted - 2016.12.04 13:38:04 - [773] - Quote Kobol Most null-sec activity is small level stuff. I can rephrase. Removing local would cause people to undock less often and spend less time undocked. It leaves spamming dscan as the main information sources - And spamming dscan is one of the main reasons people hate wormhole space. The decision to fight or not to fight a blob is ultimately decided by single individuals, so cannot have much bearing on game design. I am however mostly just arguing that nerfing local is not a compromise from an activity perspective. It's an escalation of the activity killing issues inherent to afk cloaky camping. I am not against the idea on principle. I think deployable and destroyable gates and local intel arrays would be a nice addition in certain portions of space. Why not shut down empire gates in some parts of null sec - and with that, turn off the local intel channel effects. Add some new systems. Open up a class of wormholes for gate deployment - and presto, a subsection of space becomes a wormhole-null sec hybrid sandbox for people to play in. I also think that local and alliance intel should be supplemented by a "neo" type warning system provided by CCP with a focus on empire owned gates as triggers for audio information cues (12 just jumped into 3 systems out). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 36	Posted - 2016.12.05 00:34:30 - [774] - Quote Xcom I agree with you! The first step would obviously be cynos in wormhole space and low sec as cynos are the obviousl counter to afk cloaky camping not being a problem in those segments of space. Then we should recognize the connection between bridges and local, and allow both player controlled bridges and player controlled local intelligence arrays to be put in worm hole space because cloaky camping is the only counter to local so local has to be player deployed and destroyable in that space. You might say that wormholers would have to HTFU. But that would just be mean. Cynos in wormhole space to make afk cloak campers more relevant. Then destroyable local and destroyable jumpbridges in wormhole space *Then nerf afk cloaky camping because local can be destroyed in wh space, so there is a counter besides afk cloak camping. A perfect plan! CCP should start changing the wormhole ecosystem and cloak mechanics immediately. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 37	Posted - 2016.12.05 16:10:29 - [775] - Quote Kobol The AFK component of afk cloaky camping is devastating to activity. So must be targetted for removal. Small gangs can roam in a no local environment. That environment is called wormhole space. It is easily accessible to small gang roams from all sectors of space. There is no call to remove local to cater to small gangs (and lots of reasons not to remove local if activity is a criteria). Issues making no local small gang roams in wormhole space are best adressed at thet source. With that said. Local is a poor way to provide API based information. Better systems are available as third party applications. Breaking up alliance/coalition monopolies on ranged real time information is important. As is reliance on 3rd party applications (anyone should in principle be able to play EvE effectively using only ingame assets. In principle). A favour a audio cue system triggered by gate passage myself (the new system should have loopholes clever players can exploit if willing to put in the time and effort). It would be nice if we did not try and turn null-sec into wormhole space. That experiment worked poorly the first time and needs to be fixed. The way to fix that ecosystem is not by forcibly moving null sec into it and hope inertia will keep people from moving to lowsec. Individual players and small groups need effective access to real time information in null sec. Those that dont like it can play in wormholes. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 39	Posted - 2016.12.06 12:35:04 - [776] - Quote The trap would not have worked if afk cloaky campers had been hanging around. The cynos of course got into system and logged. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 39	Posted - 2016.12.06 12:40:09 - [777] - Quote Xcom Yah, its the "first there must be world peace, then we can possibly consider changes to cloaks" stonewalling argument. The easiest way of fixing afk cloaky camping is to fix afk cloaky camping. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 42	Posted - 2016.12.07 11:31:26 - [778] - Quote I don't think ignored so much as the victim of business concerns. You can say what you want about afk cloaky camping, but it is really good at keeping accounts online. The server took a hit with the crack down on multiboxing. Doubling down on that by whacking afk cloaky campers would have been couragous. Enter Alpha clones. Afk cloaky camping can be fixed now. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 42	Posted - 2016.12.07 14:33:27 - [779] - Quote Xcom ATK Cloak Camped? 10 sounds about right. AFK Cloak Camped? At least 300 in null sec alone Drac Not only was it not needed - AFK cloaky camping was avoided. The trap would have failed if anyone had been afk cloaky camping in the system. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 43	Posted - 2016.12.07 18:48:35 - [780] - Quote Kobol Something that detects cloaking kills afk cloaky camping, but does not need to harm ATK cloaky camping if carefully implemented. Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all. Better than a timer approach, as at the time I was trying to give afk cloaky camping a window of possibility. But a window is too easy to exploit and extend until server downtime using third party applications. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 45	Posted - 2016.12.07 20:56:43 - [781] - Quote The core problem with afk cloaky camping is that it lowers activity. So it has to go. Preferrably by precision targetting the afk contribution to the equation. But some cloaky and camping collateral damage is acceptable. Kobol What is your activity impact expectation of a changed local in null-sec? Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 45	Posted - 2016.12.07 23:33:53 - [782] - Quote Kobol Thanks you. I would not mind an environment such as you describe. I just don't think it should be null-sec. My frank feeling is that OA are a good fix for wormhole space. It would alleviate the spam dscan issues that segment of space suffers from. CCP is tweaking wh space more and more toward n-space anyway. May as well try out a breakable local in that locale. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 45	Posted - 2016.12.08 03:20:48 - [783] - Quote Brokk Increased safety is illusionary. Risk per undocked hour decreases only for players willing to undock to pve with an afk cloaky camper in system. For other players, risk per undocked hour remains the same. Undocked hours increase. But for PvE, time is merely a means to an end: Isk generation. Decreasing isk/hr earnings compensates for more undocked hours. From a roaming perspective: The number of caught pve players is a function of the number of undocked pve players. Roaming kills will increase as the number of undocked hours increase. In sum: Increase carebear volume by removing the ability to afk cloaky camp systems Decrease carebear efficiency by tweaking mining, bounties, salvage, and drops Specifically target the afk component, and null-sec pve generation. Easy-peasy. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 46	Posted - 2016.12.08 08:44:09 - [784] - Quote Xcom You certainly have a point on afk cloaky campers having both the time and motivation to alt-tab their way into this thread in quite disproportionate numbers. You know. While the rest of us are wasting time with ATK EvE. Selection bias. It gives the mistaken impression that afk cloaky camping has statistically significant support. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 46	Posted - 2016.12.08 18:28:58 - [785] - Quote Xcom I am pretty sure the final solution to the wormhole problem rotates around OAs and player deployable (and destroyable) gates for at least some class systems. Wormholes were a fine idea initially, but it never caught on. Loot pinjatas was just the first step in colonizing that sector of space. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 46	Posted - 2016.12.08 19:51:37 - [786] - Quote Xcom Are they talking to the hand? Heh. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 46	Posted - 2016.12.09 02:20:30 - [787] - Quote Vic Null-sec is not dangerous. Ship loses are par with low sec and far, far lower than high sec. The only safer place is wormhole space. The reason for this is of course lack of activity in null-sec. If you dont like local, then play in wormhole space. Its designed to cater to your no local needs. Not everyone is cut out for null sec after all. The question people have asked themselves is why afk anything in null sec is still a thing. The answer of course is that the Devs have not fixed afk cloaky camping yet. But they will. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 49	Posted - 2016.12.09 10:16:58 - [788] - Quote Xcom The main reason for providing real time information is again to maintain and promote activity. Most players do not like excessive uncertainty. Those that do like it already have their wormhole sandbox. The OA should be considered in that context. A device that might help fix wormhole space while maintaining wh unique characteristics by only allowing it in some class of wormholes. Nerfing local is not a thing for null-sec. I would advise those wanting a nerfed local variant to instead think of it as an enhanced wh local and petition CCP to allow for it there. Wormholes need a hand. The Loot Pinjatas are a start. OAs are a natural next step. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 49	Posted - 2016.12.09 19:42:32 - [789] - Quote Xcom Removing local is not the issue. Removing access to real time information is however an issue. I am happy with an EvE Lore perspective that Empire gates broadcast ship and pilot data. I don't believe the broadcast data has to be "local". The point is that individual players have access to real time information system (tm) any ships that have used an Empire gate in x system within y range. Audio cues would be nice (6 reds entered ab-12 2 jumps away). With no free information being provided from cynos, player owned gates, log-off traps etc. This is where I see a role for OAs. They can tie in to the real time information system (tm) and give system specific updates similar to local today. With Empire run OAs in lowsec and highsec to give status quo with today. Wormholes have to be fixed anyway, so I would look to that space for the introduction of the OAs Or to put it another way - Lets turn portions of null-sec into the OA heaven some people desire. Its not as if anything is happening there anyway. ========== It remains a side issue from afk cloaky camping of course. Which has to end. Why is afk anything still a thing in null-sec is the only question that begs that Devs end it. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 50	Posted - 2016.12.10 07:55:49 - [790] - Quote Xcom He is proposing an impossible precondition. Its a variant of "You can pry afk cloaky camping out of my cold, dead hands". NRA tactics for the win :-). ============ Also, ship losses by space type: Hightsec - Most ship losses. Low/nullsec Wormhole space - Least ship losses. Wormhole space no doubt needs a OA to help boost population levels in that space. Fix local where it actually is broken and where nobody lives. =========== Looks like CCP is more worried about deflation, than inflation. Bounties are increasing come next update. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 50	Posted - 2016.12.10 14:11:17 - [791] - Quote Xcom Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA. Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle. Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted. People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 51	Posted - 2016.12.10 15:27:30 - [792] - Quote Xcom Just consider it shorthand for afk-like behavior. Defined as no player input over extended periods of time. CCP can track stuff like that. I can put it another way though: If null-sec is safe enough to afk something, then it should be safe enough to afk everything. I vastly prefer unsafe for afk anything myself. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 53	Posted - 2016.12.14 01:21:27 - [793] - Quote Dravclad He is sort of misunderstanding the fundamental argument: AFK cloaky campers need to HTFU and at the very least be ATK. Waaah. We need to be safe. Lulz. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 54	Posted - 2016.12.14 11:09:44 - [794] - Quote Brokk Detaching the discussion from a desire to tax ratters can be benefitial, so thank you for suggesting we try it. What is actually needed is easily accessible real time information so that Pvpers have easy access to what vulnerability windows are currently active in a given sector of space. There are always things people should defend in their peak activity periods. The problem is information access. Camping systems will always generate pvp responses if the campers are vulnerable and the information is available. But again, this would depend on easily accessible real time information so defenders can find hostile pvpers on their turf. The home turf advantage in numbers holds true for smaller adhoc operations. The issue is mostly just difficulty in meeting up. For null-sec, the fix is more local and more perfect, real time information available over greater distances. For lesser local such as OAs, see wormhole space where it is appropriate and where the demographics really need a helping hand anyway. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 54	Posted - 2016.12.15 01:57:05 - [795] - Quote There is incentive to pvp in null-sec. Its just inconvenient for casual roamers to find vulnerable assets and to fit ships appropriately in order to trigger combat. Null-sec is designed around the concept of peak times. When defence has to take place, or control of space becomes degraded. Its actually more of a problem that would be attackers can extract themselves too easily from pending combat situations if they believe the odds to not favour them. Seen most succinctly with cynos as the stand off distance ensures absolute safety until the decision to commit, but this is true for smaller roams too. The solution is more and better real time information. OAs may fix wormhole space. A good suggestion for there. Afk cloaky camping is of course resolved by making afk anything in null-sec space consistently prohibitively dangerous. Afk cloaky camp if you like, but risk losing your ship if you do. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 55	Posted - 2016.12.15 13:10:36 - [796] - Quote The OA is a nice idea for wormhole space. It does not need to cover all of wh space either (it could only work in certain catagories of wormhole space). Basically, if you want to talk about removing local, then you are also talking about removing gates. So why not just add local functions to gateless areas and see if its incredible promise leads to clamouring from nullsec for introduction there? afk anything in nullsec is bad. So it follows that afk cloaky camping needs to stop. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 56	Posted - 2016.12.15 16:49:16 - [797] - Quote On the stats For the purposes of undocked activity: Highsec: 60% Lowsec:15% Nullsec: 25% whspace: 5% Total greater than 100% due to rounding. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 56	Posted - 2016.12.16 08:02:29 - [798] - Quote Half a trillion isk was destroyed in the null-sec system M-0EE8 quite recently. CCP is opting for the epic ways of making null sec less safe it seems. The afk cloaky camping makes null sec more safe. That is one of its the huge issues. That which does not undock, cannot be harmed. Nerfing local would make null sec even safer. Trending towards wormhole levels of safety (wormhole space has 10% the ship losses null sec does). The correct way to go is to use OA to enhance wormhole space. Which is by any activity measure completely broken. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 58	Posted - 2016.12.17 02:08:26 - [799] - Quote Tempo Your suggestions sound like nifty effects for abnormalities in wormhole space. The sector of space that is actually irredeemably broken. ========== Null sec is a bit broken from an alpha clone perspective too. More than 5000 individual pilots were involved in system for that 500 billion+ kill event. 290 of the pilots were alpha clones. Wormhole space in particular, and to some extent nullsec, are not accessible enough to encompass fundamental changes in CCP development. Afk cloaky camping is a detrimental part of this picture. So has to end (because content in addition to why is afk anything still a thing). But as I have mentioned many times now: Local light (aka observation arrays) can play an important part in invigorating wormhole space. By giving players rudimentary access to real time information is certain parts of wormhole space. It is not anything for nullsec. Unless as a supplement to local (giving more and better real time information over multiple systems to suplement, improve, and replace alliance intelligence networks). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 60	Posted - 2016.12.17 16:48:55 - [800] - Quote You are talking to the hand, bro. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 60	Posted - 2016.12.20 05:49:03 - [801] - Quote Daichi Why is AFK anything still a thing? The only selfpity I see are from people afraid their afk cloaky camp buff is going away. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 60	Posted - 2016.12.20 13:06:18 - [802] - Quote Your issues with local was resolved with the introduction of wormhole space. Play there if you don't like local. Its a niche environment that most everyone hates (among the reasons for the hatred is due to lack of local), but you should occassionally be able to find someone there. Empire gates have Empire local. End of story Afkarebearing (killing things in absolute safety is the trademark of the true carebear) has to end as soon as possible. CCP is of course aware of this. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 62	Posted - 2016.12.20 22:26:20 - [803] - Quote Daichi Nothing undocked is risk free except for afk cloaky campers. And some quarter trillion targets cannot even move. CCP has opted for the epic way to kill things in null-sec. As it should be. The point is that you are wrong. Null-sec is very dangerous. Lots and lots of very expensive stuff dies there every hour. AFKarebearing is the only exception to that rule. Wormhole space was created as a local free sandbox environment. It proved to be a stunning failure when measure by player activity in that section of space. I would find it ill-advised for CCP to double down on that particular failure. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 63	Posted - 2016.12.21 08:05:29 - [804] - Quote Daichi Well, the expectation that no local results in no one living there worked out wonderfully. Nerfing nullsec local would be activity suicide and entirely contrary to what CCP is trying to achieve. For wormhole space, you now have citadels for people to live in. I think OAs are also needed if that segment of space is to be viable. We will see. Null-sec is very dangerous. PvE in null sec is a means to an end (it helps fund epic battles). IF Empire gates, Then Empire local (bring player control of nullsec gates to the table and we can begin to talk about player control of intelligence). And yepp. Alpha clone filtration into null sec and wormhole space is quite bad. So something needs to be done. I would suggest a light local for wormhole space (OA type solution) Enhanced local for k-space (something for individual pilots that is equal to or better than alliance intel channels) And the end of AFKarebearing (afk cloaky camping). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 64	Posted - 2016.12.21 13:27:57 - [805] - Quote Daichi 5% of the people involved in a null sec 0.5 trillion isk loss battle were alpha clones. Null-sec not yet accessible enough. Removing AFKarebearing (afk cloaky camping) will help fix that issue along with an enhanced local that gives individual players access to real time information in numerous systems (duplicating or improving on alliance intel information). Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 64	Posted - 2016.12.21 23:18:34 - [806] - Quote Daichi 5% is horrible. Alpha clones are pushing 50% of activity in highsec. Their involvement has plenty of opportunity to grow in nullsec as soon as the why is afk anything still a thing is removed and local is enhanced to give individual players alliance intel level of real time information. Nerfing local in nullsec is crazy. It was tried in wormhole space and was a complete failure from any reasonable activity metric. You get that activity is a thing, right? CCP wants space populated with players doing active things. Local promotes that. Afk cloaky camping degrades that. The beta map is a good start towards improving real time information. Or improving local. Not degrading it. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 64	Posted - 2016.12.22 08:26:56 - [807] - Quote Daichi Information control has an amazing amount to do with local. In short - you want to blind players, then expect them to not only remain in null-sec, but also undock frequently. It would kill activity and would kill all play derived from activity. This is a matter of record. Lack of information keeps wormhole space deader than doorknobs. Xcom Its in the discussion because dedicated threads on changing local in null-sec die. Its a bit highjacky, but cloaked under compensation: If you touch afk cloaky camping, then the least you can do is destroy nullsec as compensation for the inconvenience we might suffer. Its an entitlement thing. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 65	Posted - 2016.12.22 15:22:50 - [808] - Quote Daichi Afk cloaky camping is the result of multiple accounts and multiboxing. An entitlement thing. We have debated that Fozzie quote to death. The issue has been resolved by epic battles with 100ds of billion losses. Excessive isk generation should be resolved procedurally (tweak the rats). Free intel goes with free gates. Give players control of both in null-sec and we can talk. Though I would prefer introducing OA and player controlled gates to sections of wh space. What is already broken cannot break again. It would give you what you want in every way....except that there would be no players there of course. As to thread topic. AFK camping is extremely detrimental to activity. So must be removed. Because content. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 65	Posted - 2016.12.23 11:19:23 - [809] - Quote Don't sweat it. Everyone loses ships eventually :-). Human error is the premier content creator in null-sec. Someone has to make a mistake for pvp to happen. Afk cloaky camping destroys the window for making mistakes in null-sec. Anyone undocked will lose a ship eventually in a null-sec system. I am operating with a 3% rule. IF you are undocked, AND active hostiles able and willing to kill you enter system, THEN you will lose your ship 3% of the time. It follows that for more pvp content, you want more people undocked and more active hostiles on roams. Afk cloaky camping lowers undocking frequencies and lowers number of active hostiles on roams. It really is the ultimate in pvp cockblocking. Keeping players docked up and safe, instead of undocked hunting or undocked hunted. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 66	Posted - 2016.12.24 21:49:36 - [810] - Quote A8ina That is ultimately my feeling. Local intel is not great. A proper tool providing nuanced real time information over a number of systems with an interface that easily integrates with normal spacefaring activity would fit the ticket. A powerful tool for individual players far better than the current local and alliance intel channels. In effect integrating a number of 3rd party tools directly into the game. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 66	Posted - 2016.12.25 07:16:39 - [811] - Quote Cate The main problem with local is that it provides limited and poor real time information. So certainly has to be supplemented with something far more powerful (taking 3rd party functionality and integrating it ingame). "Something in a citadel" is appropriate for wormhole space. Giving players control of local in null-sec goes hand in hand with giving players control of the gates in null sec. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 67	Posted - 2016.12.25 13:33:42 - [812] - Quote Tempo What does the population of wormhole space tell you about dangers of weakening intelligence in null-sec? I am all for a revamp. For a more powerful ingame intelligence system giving real time information to individual players. There are lots of features in 3rd party intel applications that should be at finger tip available in-game. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 67	Posted - 2016.12.27 00:31:07 - [813] - Quote The opportunity argument is incorrect and has been throughly thrashed earlier in this thread. The limiting factor is human time. Anyone with multiple accounts can use each account to plex the next account until they run out of real life time to manage the accounts effectively. Anyone who has not yet run out of real life time is playing poorly if they use assets to afk cloaky camp instead of generating income to fund afk cloaky camping and other things once they run out of real life fime. It is also a bit incredible to believe that a person would afk cloaky camp if they had better things to do with that particular account. Finally, even if we accept there is an opportunity cost, then it just argues that afk cloaky camping need no further compensation after mechanics change than the boon they gain from releasing idle resources cloaky camping that can be put to better effect realizing whatever opportunity cost the player is claiming to suffer. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 68	Posted - 2016.12.29 20:14:47 - [814] - Quote Daichi Roaming is not ineffective. You will always find a fight. It may not be a fight you want, but you will always find one. Real time information is important if you wish to sustain activity in null-sec. For a non-activity based environment without real time information, see wormhole space. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 68	Posted - 2016.12.29 21:31:40 - [815] - Quote Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams. Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity. Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 70	Posted - 2016.12.30 14:45:07 - [816] - Quote Daichi More and better real time information, bro. Not less of it. Everywhere. Including the almost irredemably broken wormhole space. Because activity and activity derived content. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 71	Posted - 2016.12.31 12:58:56 - [817] - Quote Fuel is a timer based solution. Its good. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 71	Posted - 2016.12.31 21:35:02 - [818] - Quote Talking to the hand, bro. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 71	Posted - 2017.01.01 01:07:08 - [819] - Quote Talking to the hand, bro. Anyway. I think we have reached a concensus despite this thread's poster selection bias (you can say what you want about people using broken mechanics - be it wormhole space denizens or afk cloaky campers - , but they certainly have enough free time on their hands to post in this thread. That at least is one thing they have going for them). Afk cloaky camping needs to end now. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 72	Posted - 2017.01.02 04:08:01 - [820] - Quote Xcom Null may already be balanced from a destruction-production perspective. Or at the very least far more balanced than high sec and wormhole space. Scripio Increased activity and increased content derived from activity is the common denominator for those wanting afk cloaky camping gone. But thank you for playing. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 73	Posted - 2017.01.02 12:26:33 - [821] - Quote Scripio Then your "experience" is of little value. But thank you for playing. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 73	Posted - 2017.01.02 15:32:18 - [822] - Quote I agree with the sentiment except perhaps for the false equivalence. Most people who want to nerf afk cloaky camping do accept that some afk time might be acceptable while under the protection of cloaks. The target for change is the sustained nature of afk cloaky camping. The time-frame of what afk time we find acceptable may vary from a few minutes to up to 5 hours. AFK aficionados are uncompromising on their position that afk needs to be 23.75 hours and broken only by server downtime, while any discussion needs to be table until activity killing local nerfs are first introduced. That position amounts to fanaticism. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 73	Posted - 2017.01.02 17:23:56 - [823] - Quote Another 700 billion isk (0.7 trillion isk) destroyed in an epic null-sec battle yesterday. Good call by CCP to increase rat bounty payments last patch. The destruction is legendary and pvp players corporations and alliances need to scramble to replace losses. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 76	Posted - 2017.01.03 13:05:11 - [824] - Quote Scipio Yepp. and no. But thank you for playing. Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.