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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 09:09:09 - [7561] - 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)
Wander Prian Art Of Explosions Hole Control 292	Posted - 2016.11.04 11:02:57 - [7562] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. Your overall reasoning is quite hard to follow due to moving goalposts, jumping to conclusions, refusing to listen to facts, made-up proof that you use to back up your points, not to forget your ever-changing ideas. But I digress Why does the information have to be real-time? Why does it have to be automatically delivered to the players? Why does the changing of local automatically correlate to closing of gates? Wormholer for life.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 11:54:17 - [7563] - 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)
Wander Prian Art Of Explosions Hole Control 292	Posted - 2016.11.04 12:08:58 - [7564] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Ratpack If not real time, then less ships in space. Looking at free stuff people do nothing to deserve having in null sec would include gates. I am undermining the argument that free stuff that no one has done anything to deserve is automatically bad. If you want to follow that line of reasoning, then follow it to its conclusion. Reported for adhom. I'm not saying free stuff is automatically bad. I'm saying that the intel-network build on free and 100% accurate and fool-proof information that local provides, gives a too big safety-net in null. Wormholer for life.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 12:26:45 - [7565] - 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)
Wander Prian Art Of Explosions Hole Control 292	Posted - 2016.11.04 14:00:46 - [7566] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. They are not incompatible. They can both be achieved. The problem is that people in null have been too safe for too long and that has created the entitled feeling that they have, how they were supposed to be safe in deep null without any kind of action from their part. That has led to this thread. Personally I think it's wrong that the people on null are supposed to be entitled to more safety than high security space, given to them free of charge. They should have to work for that intel, work for the safety. Cloaking is fine, the module of working fine. AFK-cloaking is a symptom of entitlement and too good safety. Make nullsec more dangerous, not less. Wormholer for life.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 1124	Posted - 2016.11.04 15:40:15 - [7567] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Decrease bounties to keep total net isk revenue stable (revenue a function of ship hours ratting) Another post that lacks any sort of understanding about the nullsec ecosystem. Null ratting is already terrible in a sub-cap due to the risk to reward ratio compared to other income streams, like HS incursions, faction warfare, missioning, etc. If you whittled down the rewards even more, it would be even less appealing than other income streams (which are a problem in their own right, and already outpace it) as far as reward but considerably more hassle, and even less people would bother to move out to null. Why would I VNI rat for 60m/hr when I could do HS incursions for 150m/hr+ in total safety with no attachment to the space or the entities which control it? The problem with null entirely is that it does not reward line members at all. Nullsec is made by the players - not all players are equally organized. If you want to see vibrant, full, healthy sov, join one of the few alliances that have the scope and size to actually do this. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 17:04:03 - [7568] - 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)
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 1124	Posted - 2016.11.04 18:59:10 - [7569] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. Yeah but all of that assumes that the game is a theme park, and that nullsec is for risk free ISK generation. Cloaky camping is emergent gameplay, but it can also be stopped with emergent gameplay. The problem has always been a lack of will to actually counter-drop and bait them campers, and the entitlement to free ISK via being part of an alliance that lives in null. Null-sec is what the players make of it, nothing more, nothing less. If the players choose to not counter an emergent strategy with another one, than it is their fault, and no reward for them. I've lived in big-ticket sov, I've shepherded small areas of homey small alliance sov, and I have acted as a destroyer of sov. I'll straight up say the biggest problem with sov is that, while you can take systems with a frigate, to actually HOLD it and make it meaningful, it still requires the trappings and the size of pre-Aegis sov. My Widow is worth about 20billion. I drop it all the time. That should tell you how tepid the will to actually defend against cloaky camps is. I'd have lost it already if I dropped it in space where they knew how to bait, and where they actually cared about their members. And that's just the thing. Every post of yours claws for mechanics to solve your problem for you. You could put the fear of Poitot into me (or people like me), but you don't want that. You actually abhor what you claim to extol - you want all this game play, but you won't even take the game play opportunities that are there already. It leads me to the conclusion that what you want is risk free ratting in null, not this healthy vibrant null you speak of. *The healthy vibrant null is there, and renters do not see it.* Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:30:53 - [7570] - 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)

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3449	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:37:56 - [7571] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaky camping is bad only because it kills content. Null sec ratters who stay docked up when an AFK cloaker is present are hardly content. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:51:23 - [7572] - 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)
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3451	Posted - 2016.11.04 20:00:42 - [7573] - Quote Let's assume for a second you are correct and 3% of the ships are caught and destroyed. If 10,000 ships undock due to AFK cloaking being removed that would result in 300 ships being destroyed which would not offset the ISK generated by the 9700 ships which were not caught. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 20:11:01 - [7574] - Quote Not only that, but not sure there can thousands more ships in space because there are only 20-30 thousand logged in even at peak times. A chunk of those will be in HS, LS, and WHs. So maybe hundreds might undock, and that would only be in systems that were previously being camped. And how many of those are there? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 731	Posted - 2016.11.04 20:13:24 - [7575] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. Since you started playing you have 165 kills in eight years. That doesn't even average two kills per month. You want me to agree to make broad sweeping changes to EVE because of what someone who basically doesn't even do PvP says? Come on, just admit you want these changes so you can do risk free PvE in null already.
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 1126	Posted - 2016.11.04 20:38:01 - [7576] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Vic I concern myself with what is. Not how we wish players were. Afk cloaky camping is bad only because it kills content. It creates content. Something you have wholesale ignored from many posters. It's just not the content you want. Your words would have more weight to them if you actually had experience hunting or roaming in deep null. As it is, they are pretty hollow. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Xcom Quantum Vortex Battalion 38	Posted - 2016.11.04 21:44:58 - [7577] - Quote Why not just remove local and cloaking at the same time and be done with it. Or we can just keep things as they are because of some random vocal conservatives on the forums that probably post more then play. Cloaking got broken the second they added cov-ops and hot drops. Going in circular arguments in this thread just fuels the rage and shows the bureaucratic nature of CCP. Real devs would rip the guts out of the game mechanics and force change then observe the outcome and adjust accordingly. How is it even possible to see a 360+ page long problem about something that clearly needs attention that goes ignored till this day.
Wander Prian Art Of Explosions Hole Control 295	Posted - 2016.11.04 21:57:31 - [7578] - Quote Xcom wrote: Why not just remove local and cloaking at the same time and be done with it. Or we can just keep things as they are because of some random vocal conservatives on the forums that probably post more then play. Cloaking got broken the second they added cov-ops and hot drops. Going in circular arguments in this thread just fuels the rage and shows the bureaucratic nature of CCP. Real devs would rip the guts out of the game mechanics and force change then observe the outcome and adjust accordingly. How is it even possible to see a 360+ page long problem about something that clearly needs attention that goes ignored till this day. Because it's not broken nor does it need fixing. The only thing you need is a healthy dose of HTFU as it seems to be that the lack of it causes the cloak-whine. Wormholer for life.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 731	Posted - 2016.11.04 22:18:18 - [7579] - Quote Xcom wrote: Why not just remove local and cloaking at the same time and be done with it. Or we can just keep things as they are because of some random vocal conservatives on the forums that probably post more then play. Cloaking got broken the second they added cov-ops and hot drops. Going in circular arguments in this thread just fuels the rage and shows the bureaucratic nature of CCP. Real devs would rip the guts out of the game mechanics and force change then observe the outcome and adjust accordingly. How is it even possible to see a 360+ page long problem about something that clearly needs attention that goes ignored till this day. If there was a way to disable local in sov null, I would support a way to hunt/track cloaked ships. You can't change one without changing the other.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 22:53:04 - [7580] - 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)

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3452	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:05:44 - [7581] - Quote Jerghul wrote: Omna I know. Hence bounty decreases being a premise for tempering (not removing) afk cloaky camping. It would need to be somewhere in the 50 to 60% range of a decrease to compensate for the seer amount of ISK that would be able to generated from the ships that are not being destroyed that used to stay docked because of the terrifying AFK cloaker. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:28:59 - [7582] - 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)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:32:25 - [7583] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Jerghul wrote: Omna I know. Hence bounty decreases being a premise for tempering (not removing) afk cloaky camping. It would need to be somewhere in the 50 to 60% range of a decrease to compensate for the seer amount of ISK that would be able to generated from the ships that are not being destroyed that used to stay docked because of the terrifying AFK cloaker. Using Vic's 60 million ISK/Hour and the "conservative" estimate of 1,000 more ships undocked (is that per hour, or per day...like such a thing rarely matters given the foolishness of the whole premise) we'd see, after an hours worth of ratting (and accounting for kills) 49.2 billion ISK entering the economy for that hour. For 365 days out of the year that would account for just under 18 trillion ISK entering the game. That is almost double the amount of ISK that incursions inject into the game for September and that is just one hours worth of ratting. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:34:20 - [7584] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. And never mind that if the ISK/hour drops people may very well shift to other sources of income so we don't see this "explosion" of ratting ships in space. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:47:13 - [7585] - 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)
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3453	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:54:22 - [7586] - Quote You seem to want to keep things simple to hide the magnitude of what you are proposing to do. There is no two ways about it if AFK cloaking is removed then ISK/HR increases proportionally. Adjusting the rat AI will work for a short time, but like all other PVE players adapt to maintain their ISK/HR ticks. The only way to permanently reduce the ISK amounts generated from ratting is to a direct nerf to bounties which would end up driving players out of null sec. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:55:59 - [7587] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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. So much for dealing with how players are vs. how we want them to be. And you have been engaged in nothing but pseudo-math and pseudo-logic in every post. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 23:57:57 - [7588] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: You seem to want to keep things simple to hide the magnitude of what you are proposing to do. There is no two ways about it if AFK cloaking is removed then ISK/HR increases proportionally. Adjusting the rat AI will work for a short time, but like all other PVE players adapt to maintain their ISK/HR ticks. The only way to permanently reduce the ISK amounts generated from ratting is to a direct nerf to bounties which would end up driving players out of null sec. Yep, blitz a mission and then cash in the LP for one. Or if you have some alts, a PI farm--added benefit it is semi-passive. Or if you can, get in incursion fleets. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Jerghul Running with Dogs Stella Nova 13	Posted - 2016.11.05 00:07:05 - [7589] - 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)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.05 00:23:10 - [7590] - Quote Jerghul wrote: 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 :-) ============ Edit You all are getting the irony of arguing that players will leave null-sec if afk cloaky camping is tampered with, right? But that is exactly what you have been doing. Making up nonsense numbers based on nothing. They are all pure fabrications. All of your predictions are about as solid as a pile of wet toilet paper. The best that can be said of your proposal is this: More people will be able to rat. More people will be caught unawares while ratting. So more people will get blown up. How much more? You don't know at all, but that has not stopped you from quantifying it. And these attempts to quantify it is all a load of complete Bravo Sierra. And what is to stop people from logging off via a macro? Said macro will not interact with the game, will not let the player acquire any resources, and it wouldn't even be possible to tell the difference from closing the EVE client manually vs. the macro. And since it is using automation to NOT play the game it seems it wouldn't even violate the EULA. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.