These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

(Proposal) Cloaky reds in system & Macro miners in Eve, how to make life harder for them.

First post First post
Author
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2012-06-19 10:28:00 UTC
It's quite obvious Ribikoka, travelbuoy, Untouchable heart, and Ta-dam are alts. Because I refuse to believe that more than one person can have possibly missed all the well spelled out reasons why the proposal won't work yet seem to have no problems understanding a cryptic question that Rib wrote that nobody whose native language is English can decipher.

Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#162 - 2012-06-19 10:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Stensson
"But tell to me why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?"

Stil didnt get answer for a simple question, just language and grammar personal attacks.
But i told you Arduemont i have bad english, but it's time for you talk to me another language. Let's see how you can do that.

------- Cut by ISD Stensson -------

"Just i said. It's time to create something what is should be change this bad game mechanic where a cloaker can hide in enemy system and can went out from his PC, 23 hours time long, without risk.

Need solution for handling this. Capacitor useage for cloak, or fuel usage. Counter ship (seek and destroy) or AFK tag."

Edit: Please keep in mind that only English is allowed while posting - ISD Stensson
ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2012-06-19 14:10:56 UTC
Be respectful of others at all times. Personal attacks are prohibited. Post constructively. Off-topic posting is not allowed. Only English is allowed while posting.

Keep in mind this simple rules and we will not delete or edit your posts.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2012-06-19 14:55:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelie Onren
Ribikoka wrote:
"But tell to me why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?"


Yes, Ribo, this quote/question. This is the one that none of us can understand what it means. Repeating it countless times isn't going to make it any clearer to us. (and now *I* am repeating myself AND what gunslinger42 said already. !!!! ) Note, when I say 'we don't know what it means' I mean that we do not understand your english Sorry if english isn't your native language, but you may have heard of something called google translate. Perhaps you should try running this sentence through that to see if it comes up with anything more intelligible.

"tell you why disturb afk flag an afk player..." ??? -- this is not a sentence, nor a question.

Assuming you mean why it should disturb an afk player if they are afk and they get this flag, then the reason has already been answered countless times. It doesn't disturb them, but it does give out more information that the public deserves, GunSlinger said this already. In fact ( and here I go repeating myself again) I would LOVE this flag as I would cloak by your miners, wait until I get afk flagged, then once you relax thinking that I was afk, I would hot drop you and blow you up. Then, after you got used to that behaviour, I would sometimes just get the afk flag, and press a button, just to scare you and make you warp off.

The point is that it is pointless. Tracking when people are in front of their computer... that's just not a sensible solution. (I suppose you think that afk-ing while on autopilot doing 30+ jumps in a freighter should be afk flagged to?**)

**PS the answer is 'NO'.
Kahn Soomer
Beverage Production and Consumption
#165 - 2012-06-19 19:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahn Soomer
If you really want an explanation and a solution (which is doubtful), here it is again:

First, what I am NOT talking about…
Let’s use your Good Rhetorical Question. Why disturb a cloaked pilot? You are right that, usually, there is no need to disturb cloaked pilots because they at their keyboards having fun playing EvE, and that’s wonderful! As you know, that’s NOT what these many people are asking to be changed/fixed. Because AFK cloaked ships are NOT a problem when in EMPIRE, when in their own alliance space in NULL, or when they are being used by an ACTIVE player (i.e. – by someone sitting at their computer pushing buttons or taking intel notes). We’re talking, instead, about the EXTENDED AFK.

Why disturb the pilot who cloaks his ships and goes AFK? We all know cloaked ships are an excellent tactic when used by an “awake” enemy pilot. HOWEVER, when the cloaked pilot is not at the keys FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME (which I will define as 2-4+ hours), the cloaked ship/pilot are NEVER serving a tactical purpose for “gathering intel” or whatever fabricated excuse was offered by the earlier poasters who follow these practices. Once the AFK lasts for AN EXTENDED PERIOD, their sole or primary purpose becomes causing grief and interfering with normal game play by the other people in system (both blues and hostiles who are trying to get an accurate count of the tactical situation). As noted, this does violate EULA and many believe it to be a broken mechanic due to lack of an effective “counter measure” being available to the system sovereignty holder (blues).

How does the AFK ship violate EULA when cloaked in hostile territory? It is the exact same principle as EULA forbidding the mining bots or the ratting bots, except the cloaky doesn’t even require a “bot”. A EULA violation results from (1) a pilot who is NOT AT HIS COMPUTER, (2) who leaves his ship (neut or red) in enemy system, (3) for sole purpose of causing grief and annoyance and/or to impede normal game play by his enemy. [For example, a Player puts his cloaked alt character into his enemy’s system right before he leaves for work in the morning and the Player leaves his computer running all day with the Alt Char online all day until the next down time without attending his keyboard except when he gets home for about 10 minutes to push a button before he leaves again to go out to the local pub for drinks and a party. (The Net Result of “tactical intel” being advocated by many people in this thread results in EIGHTEEN HOURS (18 hours) of cloaked enemy (RED or NEUT) in his enemy’s sovereign system or office system vs. TEN MINUTE (10 minutes) with the Player at his keyboard … not exactly what I would call “intel gathering”, but obviously trying to deliver grief.)]
I particularly enjoyed the earlier question: Isn’t this the same as turning on a freighter to auto pilot 30 jumps across Empire?” Guess what… that Freighter is “at risk” of being ambushed and is “in play” while the AFK Cloaker is never “at risk” while cloaked.

SUMMARY: Why disturb the cloaked pilot?
1. He is interfering with normal game play while not “at risk”;
2. He is violating EULA.

PROPOSED SOLUTION: Confidentially Tag the Offending Player for his EULA VIOLATION. Let the GM or automation kick the AFK CLOAKER, resulting in emergency warp. Is he "afraid" to log back in due to "risk"? Doubtful, since he can immediately cloak up, again. Anyways, this solution is simple- Just use the same mechanic already in effect for EULA Violations when a player posts kiddie porn or uses offensive language in LOCAL. Both types of conduct are reportable as a EULA violation.

Perhaps this will take time for GM to police, but perhaps it takes less time than programming a simple timer to fix this game mechanic. As noted above, CCP does have ways to track when the account is online and inactive, which can be used by the GM to quickly identify and silently boot/bounce the AFK player’s account so he has to relog… Heaven only knows this game causes enough unintentional “emergency warps” that a few like this to encourage fairness shouldn’t be a problem. Whenever the Coding is rewritten, a more permanent solution should become available, so this is only a stop gap solution.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#166 - 2012-06-20 07:59:32 UTC
Kahn Soomer wrote:
***


"But tell to me why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?" question not equal with "Why disturb a cloaked pilot?"
That is just a tag, same as who online or not and that is existing in the game.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#167 - 2012-06-20 11:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dosnix
Ribikoka wrote:
Kahn Soomer wrote:
***


"But tell to me why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?" question not equal with "Why disturb a cloaked pilot?"
That is just a tag, same as who online or not and that is existing in the game.


We've answered this question over and over, and here is the answer again.
AFK tag causes problems for everyone, not just AFK cloakies. examples below:

Quote:
- Suicide ganking will be easier, because they will know which targets are easy pickings (because it will say they're afk).
- Attacking people in their own space will be easier, because hostiles will know when their targets friends are AFK in station.
- It will make intel gathering in preperation for attacks rediculous, because people will be able to guestimate how many people are active. People can already glean too much info from local as it is.


Also, it wont work for the below reasons:

Quote:
- Afk cloakies can just go AFK in an anomally, so that when someone warps in they can attack them. The afk tag will only dissapear once the person in the anomaly is being attacked. So, if anything the AFK tag will only make people feel stupidly secure.
- Someone can just jam something in the keyboard and the afk tag wont show up.



Also, AFK cloakies are not in violation of the EULA. That is rediculous. They're not actively doing anything, so how can they be greifing? Also, greifing is defined as a repeated act against one particular player. AFK cloakies presence effects everyone in that system, and if they leave that system the cloaky doesn't follow one particular player. If they did happen to follow one particular player it STILL wouldn't be greifing because out in low or nullsec, even if he were just waiting for the right time to strike, that is what those spaces are for... PvP.

Its already been suggested the GMs police it, which is also rediculous. Do you really think they have the time to try and futily figure out who is and who isn't at their keyboard? Even if they could somehow tell (which they cant) it would be a massive waste of resources.

corrected a typo
ISD Dosnix

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

0Lona 0ltor
Adeptio Gloriae
Train Wreck.
#168 - 2012-06-20 12:37:42 UTC
On this remove local chat idea I opt for another solution.

Transponders just like aircraft in real life.

You would have a transponder choice in local chat to either brodcast yourself into the local window or not by turning off your transponder you would not appear on the chat window.

The only people who want a local list in null are botters. There is zero other reason to have it other than to protect bots if you want to know who is in your system then be active and play the game.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2012-06-20 14:16:31 UTC
0Lona 0ltor wrote:
On this remove local chat idea I opt for another solution.

Transponders just like aircraft in real life.

You would have a transponder choice in local chat to either brodcast yourself into the local window or not by turning off your transponder you would not appear on the chat window.

The only people who want a local list in null are botters. There is zero other reason to have it other than to protect bots if you want to know who is in your system then be active and play the game.


And start to spamming all pilot their scanner button within 2 seconds which instanlty should be make lagfests.
No.

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2012-06-20 14:26:10 UTC
To 0lona, I think that spies also do want to see what other spies are in their system so that they can determine their where abouts. Removing local even optionally breaks this and makes cloakers even MORE powerful. ( collecting intel and collecting it completely stealthily!) little do people realize this is actually more power to cloakers. (miners rarely understand this as their view is myopically from a prey point of view )

To the idea of "extended afk" by Kahn Soomer, firstly kudos for putting together a cohesive arguement that is fair and unbiased.
But while I agree on your premise and definitions, I cannot agree that even an extended afker is doing anything wrong.
What if I wanted to record via videocam 24 hours worth of footage of an enemy POS while cloaked? That's legitamate intel gathering. That's fair play according to EULA. That's how I know where your fleet is or where your miners hang out and what times they log on. Why should I have to press a button to prove non-afk in this case??

Being afk is not against EULA. End of story. You should really think about your grounds of why you think it should be. No other arguement against afkers without tackling this fundamental issue is worth considering.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#171 - 2012-06-20 17:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dosnix
Arduemont wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Kahn Soomer wrote:
***


"But tell to me why disturb afk tag an afk player who not at the computer ?" question not equal with "Why disturb a cloaked pilot?"
That is just a tag, same as who online or not and that is existing in the game.


We've answered this question over and over, and here is the answer again.
AFK tag causes problems for everyone, not just AFK cloakies. examples below:

[quote]- Suicide ganking will be easier, because they will know which targets are easy pickings (because it will say they're afk).
- Attacking people in their own space will be easier, because hostiles will know when their targets friends are AFK in station.
- It will make intel gathering in preperation for attacks rediculous, because people will be able to guestimate how many people are active. People can already glean too much info from local as it is.


This is just untruth thing and evading.

First, suicide ganking not equal with ambush when cloaker pick target and attack his target after uncloak!!!
Arduemont *snip* go to high sec and learn what is suicide ganking and who will potential victims.

Second. Not easier to pick targets, because the attackers dont know who used another clients or doing anything while open a communication software. So, this preparation blabla just a big lie.

"Everyone knows why would be disturb the AFK tag some cloaky fags, who lying in this topic "I'm AFK at enemy systems and i cant kill anyone when i'm AFK", because they would be lost the chances to terrorizing active players in AFK."

Edit: keep calm, there is no reason for flaming or other Personal attacks
ISD Dosnix
Kahn Soomer
Beverage Production and Consumption
#172 - 2012-06-20 19:57:49 UTC
Unless and until you have been part of a small alliance claiming less than 5 sovereign systems, which has been "fairly fought" by a hot dropping alliance that leaves AFK CLOAKERS onine in all your systems 24/7 for a few weeks, I am NOT going to listen to you suggest this process is "fair", "balanced", or not "grief" against each and every blue player in those systems.

Unless and until you have tried to conduct PvE to recover isk to reship after your PvP losses, and you find that your alliance's PvE systems are plaged by 24/7 AFK CLOAKED SHIPS and hot droppers, I am NOT going to listen to you talk about making FRAPS of your screens for intell. We ALL know WHY you do this, and it's NOT going to hurt your intell for CCP to use existing reporting mechanisms to BOOT the EXTENDED AFK CLOAKED SHIPS into an emergency warp. They will be safe in an emergency warp exit from system, and they can, ofc, relog and return to their cloaked duties as soon as they return to the keys to actively play the game. No foul on them, particularly if they are truly active.

I tend to agree there is no reason to "TAG" these people in Local. The solution is to push a REPORT BUTTON so that CCP can verify AFK status and BOOT THEM resulting in relog if there was an error. Small penalty to pay for the grief they inflict. And, not a big priority for GMs or enforcement as there is really "no rush" for booting them - they are going to be there 24/7 and ready to be booted whenever the GM has some down time available to deal with the anonymous REPORTS.

EULA violation for botting AFK and for purpose of giving grief to every person in system. This isn't a EULA violation? ROFL. Let's be serious. That's like suggesting a mass murder isn't a crime because it effects more than one person and the crime is described as killing "a person". I don't think the Judge will grant your motion to dismiss the indictment against a mass murderer on that basis.

So, I say (as explained in detail above):

1. ADD A REPORT BUTTON. [Put it into the same place where you report foul mouthed people or pron links = grief against the Local Residents in LOCAL. The policy would be explained in a small pop up or description before you push the button.]

2. CCP follows up on a report of the violation in a leisurely way (as time permits) to BOOT the LONG AFK CLOAKY causing him to go offline and into a safe emergency warp (until he logs back in and reactives cloak). Abuse of the reporting tool could also carry consequences.
PROBLEM SOLVED (at least until some "PvP counter-measure" or some better solution is developed and implemented.)

We players are paying for good mechanics. Please don't tell us CCP still doesn't have time to fix this or address it.
Please make this a priority, and please someone on the COUNCIL take on this Project as a CRUSADE. Show us you can make a difference. This will limprove the game.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2012-06-21 09:23:35 UTC
Kahn Soomer wrote:
wall of text


Repeat.
Just i said. It's time to create something what is should be change this bad game mechanic where a cloaker can hide in enemy system and can went out from his PC, 23 hours time long, without risk.

Need solution for handling this. Capacitor useage for cloak, or fuel usage. Counter ship (seek and destroy) or AFK tag.
But cloaking is not against EULA. Cloakers just need real counters after they went to AFK very long time in cloak and when cloakers not really play just plagued systems in AFK 24/7 long time without play.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#174 - 2012-06-21 11:49:32 UTC
Kahn Soomer wrote:
Unless and until you have been part of a small alliance claiming less than 5 sovereign systems, which has been "fairly fought" by a hot dropping alliance that leaves AFK CLOAKERS onine in all your systems 24/7 for a few weeks, I am NOT going to listen to you suggest this process is "fair", "balanced", or not "grief" against each and every blue player in those systems.


I have.

Kahn Soomer wrote:
Unless and until you have tried to conduct PvE to recover isk to reship after your PvP losses, and you find that your alliance's PvE systems are plaged by 24/7 AFK CLOAKED SHIPS and hot droppers.


I have.

Kahn Soomer wrote:
I tend to agree there is no reason to "TAG" these people in Local. The solution is to push a REPORT BUTTON so that CCP can verify AFK status and BOOT THEM resulting in relog if there was an error. Small penalty to pay for the grief they inflict. And, not a big priority for GMs or enforcement as there is really "no rush" for booting them - they are going to be there 24/7 and ready to be booted whenever the GM has some down time available to deal with the anonymous REPORTS.


The report button idea really isn't going to work, because CCP wont commit the man hours required for this sort of thing. And that's even if it was in violation of the EULA (Which I really dont believe it is). Saying "please dont tell me CCP dont have the time", doesn't make it not true. They really dont have the time. And like I say, even if they did, you would still need an overwhelming consensus from the playerbase to say that it was a good idea, which your not getting. I doubt even Rib thinks CCP would handle a report button very well.

Kahn Soomer wrote:
EULA violation for botting AFK and for purpose of giving grief to every person in system. This isn't a EULA violation? ROFL. Let's be serious. That's like suggesting a mass murder isn't a crime because it effects more than one person and the crime is described as killing "a person". I don't think the Judge will grant your motion to dismiss the indictment against a mass murderer on that basis.


Going AFK is not botting. It has no in game mechanics altering effect. The only effect it does have is a psychological one. Comparing going afk in an enemy system to murder is not cool, dont do it. Its also not right. You also appear to be forgetting that for a pilot with a cloak it is safer for them to go afk in space than it is for them to dock up, or log off. Logging off gives the enemy a chance to scan you down and kill you when there is nothing you can do about it, and docking up means you have to leave a hostile station or risk getting camped in. Sometimes its just a matter of convenience.


Also, thank you for posting. It is nice to have someone posting constructively in here.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2012-06-21 12:35:35 UTC
Maybe the emergent game play solution here is for you to offer up a portion of your pve gains to your renter corp, so that they go patrol your space to give you some security.
Or just get used to red cloakers. Welcome to null. If you think your problems are unique to you, think again.
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2012-06-21 13:49:24 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Kahn Soomer wrote:
wall of text


Repeat.
Just i said. It's time to create something what is should be change this bad game mechanic where a cloaker can hide in enemy system and can went out from his PC, 23 hours time long, without risk.

Need solution for handling this. Capacitor useage for cloak, or fuel usage. Counter ship (seek and destroy) or AFK tag.
But cloaking is not against EULA. Cloakers just need real counters after they went to AFK very long time in cloak and when cloakers not really play just plagued systems in AFK 24/7 long time without play.



Indeed.
Kahn Soomer
Beverage Production and Consumption
#177 - 2012-06-21 14:33:26 UTC
Skip my wall of text.
Read the SOLUTION (SEE ABOVE).
Pick it up.
Run with it, Mr. Council Man.

Further constructive suggestion:
If you don't want to have a GM click 2 buttons (this isn't drafting response to a petition, is it?), then AUTOMATE THE BUTTON to activate the booting 2 hours after the report but ONLY if the AFK CLOAKER remains inactive in the same system where he was first reported as an EXTENDED AFK CLOAKER (2+ hours afk) to CCP. This would cause auto boot 4+ hours into his AFK mode.

You think the RISK to cloaky is unfari? An AFK Cloaky has risk of getting discovered in an automated Emergency d/c warp out? Well, that probably depends on where he parked himself AFK, but I'd say the risk is minimal. Oh, wai... do you want a role with no risk, Mr. Cloaky? Are you AFRAID, Mr. Cloaky? LOL. Even the Psychological warfare could have a counter. I love it.

p.s. - Making a constructive suggestion in here seems to always cause trolling and personal attack. So, you win, Mr. Troll. I'm not renting and I'm not going "back to Empire". Instead, I'll simply say:
I have played EvE continuously for over 6 years, and in all parts of the map. One thing remains constant. Wherever players gather together near a resource, you have people doing EXTENDED CLOAKY AFK looking for ganks. Since there is no counter for this with game mechanics, the best solution is simply not to undock or to move to another system. Moving is easy for the large alliances who control the Council. It's not so easy for the small guys. [atm, my main is associated with a larger alliance. so this isn't really hurting me personally, atm. I'm posting because I think the mechanic is broken, and has been broken for many years due to the way the cloak mechanism was coded.] IF a council member takes up this cause to investigate a solution with CCP, he will have my utmost respect and appreciation.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#178 - 2012-06-21 14:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Kahn Soomer wrote:
Skip my wall of text.
Read the SOLUTION (SEE ABOVE).
Pick it up.
Run with it, Mr. Council Man.

Further constructive suggestion:
If you don't want to have a GM click 2 buttons (this isn't drafting response to a petition, is it?), then AUTOMATE THE BUTTON to activate the booting 2 hours after the report but ONLY if the AFK CLOAKER remains inactive in the same system where he was first reported as an EXTENDED AFK CLOAKER (2+ hours afk) to CCP. This would cause auto boot 4+ hours into his AFK mode.

You think the RISK to cloaky is unfari? An AFK Cloaky has risk of getting discovered in an automated Emergency d/c warp out? Well, that probably depends on where he parked himself AFK, but I'd say the risk is minimal. Oh, wai... do you want a role with no risk, Mr. Cloaky? Are you AFRAID, Mr. Cloaky? LOL. Even the Psychological warfare could have a counter. I love it.

p.s. - Making a constructive suggestion in here seems to always cause trolling and personal attack. So, you win, Mr. Troll. I'm not renting and I'm not going "back to Empire". Instead, I'll simply say:
I have played EvE continuously for over 6 years, and in all parts of the map. One thing remains constant. Wherever players gather together near a resource, you have people doing EXTENDED CLOAKY AFK looking for ganks. Since there is no counter for this with game mechanics, the best solution is simply not to undock or to move to another system. Moving is easy for the large alliances who control the Council. It's not so easy for the small guys. [atm, my main is associated with a larger alliance. so this isn't really hurting me personally, atm. I'm posting because I think the mechanic is broken, and has been broken for many years due to the way the cloak mechanism was coded.] IF a council member takes up this cause to investigate a solution with CCP, he will have my utmost respect and appreciation.



Capacitor consume for cloaked ships is much better solution than posting GMs. They dont have time for check every cloakers and you never see cloaked pilot active or not. So, how you can report a cloakers if you dont know he is active or not?

Capacitor consume much better solution.
During cloak disable cap regeneration and after every hour remove 25% (or 20%) of capacitor from covert cloaked ships and 50% of capacitor every hour from non covert cloaked ship. Thats mean a cloaker need to move after 4-5 hours (recons) or need to move after 2 hours (common cloaks)
Disable recloak ability again until the cloak can reach the appropriate value at least 25% or 50% of cap. (depends from cloak type, covert or not)

So, when the ship run out from capacitor, the ship need to move to safe spot and the pilot unable to remain AFK 4 or 5 hours long time in enemy system or he risk his ship.
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2012-06-22 05:45:17 UTC
Oh noes. Yet another cap consume cloaking suggestion.
How original.

How about you stop trying to nerf my play style of intel collection (recording the screen forever) and all the other comments that other people have mentioned like relative safety of cloakers in station of log off.

Your whining ( of just the 2 of you and your alts ) is what everyone deals with in nullsec.
You got a bum deal, you rented a fringe system from a big alliance. Surprise surprise. These alliances treat these systems like ghetto properties by the train tracks. IE get whatever sucker to pay to rent it as they can't be bothered to defend it themselves.

I used to argue for a counter to cloakers too (google it) before I realized the legitimacy of intel collection and nullsec noob terrorizing. Which is valid tactics in null. ( yes. Valid. Just like ninja salvaging )

So just HTFU.
(I hate using that term, but nothing else sums it up as well)

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2012-06-22 05:53:57 UTC
Kahn Soomer wrote:


You think the RISK to cloaky is unfari? An AFK Cloaky has risk of getting discovered in an automated Emergency d/c warp out? Well, that probably depends on where he parked himself AFK, but I'd say the risk is minimal. Oh, wai... do you want a role with no risk, Mr. Cloaky? Are you AFRAID, Mr. Cloaky? LOL. Even the Psychological warfare could have a counter. I love it.

.


Reading comprehension fail.
I'll say it again.
Risk == reward.
There is no ISK making in intel collection or cloaking. Having no risk is FINE. And fair.

You miner on the other hand are making isk mining. You and only you need to bear the risk.