These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Increase PVP and combat afk cloaky camping

Author
Mag's
Azn Empire
#221 - 2013-06-28 20:23:33 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Mag's

I have already stated that I don't think that people should be penalized for sitting in station or POS's, cause they are defensive items and are used in such a fashion. Your issue with them is you cant attack them. That is kind of what they were designed for. It is not like someone can just take a POS into your home system and set it up, so they can safe up and sit there all the time.
I don't have an issue with the POS or station mechanic, I'm not sure how you read that into anything I wrote. My point is they can also use local in the same regard. As well as those in space, not sitting still, without a cloak.

Behr Oroo wrote:
As for the mindset to live in Null. Yes I agree that it takes a certain one to live there but there is far more than just one mindset. This is a guess on my part but I am taking it that you prefer the PVP aspect of this game. Where as I prefer other aspects, like construction, invention, exploration and whatever. Now combat is always a part of the game but the mentality behind how one is prepared for combat is different. I would guess that you feel this isn't an issue is simply cause the majority of the players around you are also PVP focused players, so it would stand to reason they wouldn't be in favor of this idea cause it they feel it would hinder their game play. Where as I am around a lot of industrials. Several of us feel that the playing field needs to be leveled.
Actually all the things you list are PvP, combat is merely a subset of PvP activities in Eve. But I digress.

I'm not in favour of this idea, simply because it's a bad one and done for all the wrong reasons. Please don't attempt to label me as one that only wants change if it benefits my game play, far from it. I'm as much against ideas that screw the game in the opposite direction, in other words my direction. One look through my posting history will testify to that. I have and always will have, my grounding in balance.

Behr Oroo wrote:
I think that a lot of the back and forth here is the unwillingness of people to consider the other side of the coin.

As for my lack of understanding. What mistakes I have made, I had quickly admitted to and have learned from them. My only real mistake was the lack of understanding of what happens to a cyno field once it is destroyed and even then I was only off on the time duration.

See what I think is that you are assuming that I want an all powerful fix to things like AFk so that it can be eliminated completely. This is not what I seek. What I want is a way to fight against the potentially AFK person that is sitting in my home system for days on end. I don't think that being able to de-cloak and destroy an invading cloaky is the only option but I do feel its the most effective.

It really seems that you are just saying "no, this wont work" out of your own personal bias for the topic and your assumption that I want something that I don't.
I told you why it will not work, as there are still ways to use local even after this change. I was hoping you would consider that and come up with just how this is possible, but alas you keep ignoring it.

This idea gives you yet more intel, without addressing the mechanic being used when AFKing. It affects active play as much, if not more than those AFK. But as we now know the whole AFK argument was a red herring, so then we ask why is intel gathering such a problem for you? If intel gathering is such an issue, then what about local?
You seem to understand there are other ways to combat this, yet still clamour for change.
Your new position that claims bias from my direction is laughable at best. Like I said, my posting history will attest to that.

Behr Oroo wrote:
How bout I pose it to you this way. This is a discussion forum about potential ideas and suggestions. Let's assume for a minute that a scout ship was going to be created. If that ship was to come into existence, what balances would need to be made to make it work?

This is the purpose of my post. If you don't wish to have input on the topic, then you are more than welcome to move along but I am going to continue the thread, as I see fit cause it is simply an idea. With one exception, I have been very good to not bring this down to a flame war and I have tried very hard to look at all sides and correct mistakes that I make and I will continue to do so.
Address the mechanic being used first, remove it's potency. In other words, remove the intel aspect from local. Do this first, then look at a simply way to look for cloaked ships that takes a bit of skill to accomplish. You, just as others before you, have approached this from the wrong side. This is part of the lack of understanding I mention.

Cause and effect. Start with the cause, then the effect will not be an issue for you. But be aware that CCP have looked to change this mechanic for years, but have so far failed to come up with a solution.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#222 - 2013-06-28 20:28:49 UTC
Akemi Kiyoura

You are absolutely correct. This would be VERY HARD to do. Not impossible but pretty hard.

I have said several times that the idea isn't perfect and I have been thinking about the ability to pinpoint an object in 3D space if its moving, especially since the game interface doesn't give any sense of orientation except in relation to celestials in the system.
to be completely honest, I don't like the idea of using scan probes, but its already in the game and seems the only real way of doing it.

I was toying with the idea of a 20KM EM burst idea, that could be pulsed at 60 second cycles. This would ping ships within the 20KM radius BUT not provide a lock or anything that could be a broadcast. Much like flicking a light switch on and back off in a dark room. You get an idea of what is there but you really cant do anything till you get closer and you have to keep pulsing the light. So the probes give a general idea and the pulse helps locate to a degree. This would be balanced by a warning to the cloaked ship that it had been pinged. The ping wouldn't decloak the ship or tell what the ship was, just a little flash in space that would provide a location to move towards.

Like I have said. I like this idea. I see no harm in continuing to discuss it. That is why the forums are here. As for posters like Gun and a few others. Look, you guys are cool and I get it. You don't like the idea, feel free to keep bumping the thread though. It's all good.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#223 - 2013-06-28 22:58:42 UTC
It does not become reasonable to hunt cloaked vessels, when the awareness of their presence is handed out for free.

On Being docked: To a lesser degree, it makes no sense to be aware of pilot presence when they are not technically even in a ship.
For them to be able to see all pilots in system, yet strangely unable to know who is on grid with the station itself, sounds backwards.

Inside a POS: You can target nothing, and cannot be shot in turn. Despite the ship being denied interaction on these levels, they can still see local and be seen as such.

Should it change so that effort is needed to become aware of cloaked ships, then the ability to detect them should match the needs and requirements for them to be undetected.
Then, a logical opposed contest of efforts can determine IF they are detected, and from what range.

To me these points are self evident. I would rather see no changes take place than bad changes, as stalemate / balance is better than balanced in favor of one side.
Anzomia
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#224 - 2013-09-22 16:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Anzomia
The bottom line here is that CCP has done everything possible to limit or eliminate AFK play in most aspects of the game. In most cases, the afk play eliminated were mechanics that could earn players ISK. This mechanic should not be treated any differently because players don't earn ISK with it.

It's a tough subject because there are many uses for it, but the afk camping just for the sake of AFK camping can get rather frustrating simply because there is really no way to defend against or counter it....

My suggestion would be that for every 30-60 minutes you are cloaked (consecutively), give it a cool-down timer of 2-3 minutes before the cloaking device can be reactivated. If nothing else, it forces the campers to be at their keyboard and not minimized playing another char all day....
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#225 - 2013-09-22 20:06:00 UTC
Anzomia wrote:
The bottom line here is that CCP has done everything possible to limit or eliminate AFK play in most aspects of the game. In most cases, the afk play eliminated were mechanics that could earn players ISK. This mechanic should not be treated any differently because players don't earn ISK with it.

It's a tough subject because there are many uses for it, but the afk camping just for the sake of AFK camping can get rather frustrating simply because there is really no way to defend against or counter it....

My suggestion would be that for every 30-60 minutes you are cloaked (consecutively), give it a cool-down timer of 2-3 minutes before the cloaking device can be reactivated. If nothing else, it forces the campers to be at their keyboard and not minimized playing another char all day....

This is the problem. Not what you are describing, but HOW you are describing it.

The reason so-called AFK Cloaking exists, is to catch their desired targets. This would be ratting and mining craft which supports an enemies economy.
(We can attack industrials and freighters moving the items, attacking the source is equally valid)

But why AFK Cloak?
The PvE craft have a near perfect defense, in that local notifies players of new arrivals before the new arrivals actually load the system. This grace period is usually more than enough to warp to safety, and with a little preparation it ALWAYS is more than enough time.

What is the result of this?
A prepared PvE pilot is effectively immune to hostile threat, especially from newly arrived hostiles, since local tells you before they load system, and displays their presence so long as they remain.

AFK Cloaking is the persistent presence, that local pilots stop believing represents a live threat. At this point, local's intel has been discarded as not relevant, and the target's can begin to operate once more.

Besides pilot error, it is the only realistic tactic to promote successful kills. And pilot error is simply not common enough to sustain activity and a plausible level of threat.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#226 - 2013-09-22 20:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Anzomia wrote:
My suggestion would be that for every 30-60 minutes you are cloaked (consecutively), give it a cool-down timer of 2-3 minutes before the cloaking device can be reactivated. If nothing else, it forces the campers to be at their keyboard and not minimized playing another char all day....


My suggestion would be that for every 30-60 minutes you are docked (consecutively) you are undocked, give it a cool-down timer of 2-3 minutes before the docking request can be requested. If nothing else, it forces the dockers to be at their keyboard and not minimized playing another char all day....
DaRk'TaLoN90
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2013-09-22 22:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: DaRk'TaLoN90
Here is an idea... limit the cloak so that it has an active cycle time of about 1-2 hours. That way it can be deactivated/reactivated just like a strip miner or ice mining module, with little to no penalty apart from the current reactivation timer. This way, it prevents people from going afk for an extended period but allows players to use the module how its intended to be used.. for epic ganking and stealthy operations.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#228 - 2013-09-22 23:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
DaRk'TaLoN90 wrote:
Here is an idea... limit the cloak so that it has an active cycle time of about 1-2 hours. That way it can be deactivated/reactivated just like a strip miner or ice mining module, with little to no penalty apart from the current reactivation timer. This way, it prevents people from going afk for an extended period but allows players to use the module how its intended to be used.. for epic ganking and stealthy operations.

Reducing the chances a cloaked pilot can be expected to genuinely be AFK, since they would lose their ship to the first dscan after their cloak failed.

A pilot still listed in local, and under an active cloak, must still be recently active.
If the pilot was recently active, then it is unsafe to undock, as the cloaker will be forced to either leave or be killed at some point.

This removes any realistic uncertainty.

They can't catch competent PvE when they are just entering the system, and this greatly drops the chances anyone will believe they are AFK long enough to operate safely.

With such trivial risk remaining, mostly NPC based except for pilots moving between systems, why insist they even log in to mine or rat anymore? Just have them log out flagged, and they can get ore / loot automatically, and save server load.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#229 - 2013-09-23 00:13:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
DaRk'TaLoN90 wrote:
Here is an idea... limit the cloak so that it has an active cycle time of about 1-2 hours. That way it can be deactivated/reactivated just like a strip miner or ice mining module, with little to no penalty apart from the current reactivation timer. This way, it prevents people from going afk for an extended period but allows players to use the module how its intended to be used.. for epic ganking and stealthy operations.


Here is an idea... limit the docking so that it has an active dock time of about 1-2 hours and then eject that person. That way it (the ship) can be docked again if they (the person) are active, with little to no penalty apart from the current redock request. This way, it prevents people from going afk for an extended period.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#230 - 2013-09-23 00:47:26 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
What ever happened to shooting the guy after he decloaks? Did that stop working all of the sudden?


that instantly becomes ineffective when they cyno in friends

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt

NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#231 - 2013-09-23 03:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Astroniomix wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:


I ask for a chance to fight back against a style of game play at the moment that is untouchable.

But it's only untouchable up until the point that they try to interact with you.

To me it seems that you don't get the OP's points at all.

Players who are in a system with a cloaked player / ship in it can't find out if he's actually active or afk with his cloaky ship. The moment he finds out that 'OH he's actually active' it's gonna be the moment the cloaked ship sits uncloaked on top of your ass with a cyno ready to jump in tons of ships. Witch means that it doesn't matter for those players who are disrupted by the cloaker if they are active or not, because they will decide to dock up because of that threat.

So the question is, how is anyone supposed to know if a cloaky player are active or afk?

If he's active, then sure, he can do whatever he like, but if he's actually are afk, then you should NOT still be able to disrupt others on what they are doing. The second you undock from a station, you are not supposed to be safe in ANY ways. It's that simple.

I'm also a 2004 player who have been playing all the years, so i know every damn mechanics, tactics and tricks in this game. So yes, i support the OP's idea. His ideas might not be 100% like he want it to be if it ends up in EVE, but the fact that no one should be safe while in space, i will support to get afk cloakers more vulnerable while they are in space.

And lastly, those who think afk cloaking is fine must be blind or stupid, because it's pretty clear that there is alot of problems with afk cloaking when you see how many topics that have been made about this from earlier.

Mag's wrote:
Gather intel? I'm sorry but I thought it was the AFK part you were targeting here. Isn't intel gathering an active pursuit?

How are we supposed to know if this cloaker is active or not?

That's the problem here. And because of that problem, it will disrupt the other players in that system no matter if the cloaker is active or afk. And this will make those other players there to dock up no matter what. See the problem here?

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2013-09-23 05:53:18 UTC
Anzomia wrote:
The bottom line here is that CCP has done everything possible to limit or eliminate AFK play in most aspects of the game. In most cases, the afk play eliminated were mechanics that could earn players ISK. This mechanic should not be treated any differently because players don't earn ISK with it.

It's a tough subject because there are many uses for it, but the afk camping just for the sake of AFK camping can get rather frustrating simply because there is really no way to defend against or counter it....

My suggestion would be that for every 30-60 minutes you are cloaked (consecutively), give it a cool-down timer of 2-3 minutes before the cloaking device can be reactivated. If nothing else, it forces the campers to be at their keyboard and not minimized playing another char all day....


Why did you necro a thread with a horrible idea?

And who cares if people are AFK and not earning isk...oh..wait...they are hampering your attempts to earn isk and you want freebies yourself. That is what this is.

Next time be honest and just say, "I'd like free intel on that guy in local." Or how about, "I want risk free PvE."

At least you'll be honest and not hiding behind some tortured logic.

"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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2013-09-23 05:55:39 UTC
DaRk'TaLoN90 wrote:
Here is an idea... limit the cloak so that it has an active cycle time of about 1-2 hours. That way it can be deactivated/reactivated just like a strip miner or ice mining module, with little to no penalty apart from the current reactivation timer. This way, it prevents people from going afk for an extended period but allows players to use the module how its intended to be used.. for epic ganking and stealthy operations.


I'd like to get free isk every couple of hours. Can I have that if you get your free intel?

"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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#234 - 2013-09-23 05:56:56 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
What ever happened to shooting the guy after he decloaks? Did that stop working all of the sudden?


that instantly becomes ineffective when they cyno in friends


Your guns shut off when the cyno goes up? I'd petition that.

"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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2013-09-23 05:58:29 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:


I ask for a chance to fight back against a style of game play at the moment that is untouchable.

But it's only untouchable up until the point that they try to interact with you.

To me it seems that you don't get the OP's points at all.

Players who are in a system with a cloaked player / ship in it can't find out if he's actually active or afk with his cloaky ship. The moment he finds out that 'OH he's actually active' it's gonna be the moment the cloaked ship sits uncloaked on top of your ass with a cyno ready to jump in tons of ships. Witch means that it doesn't matter for those players who are disrupted by the cloaker if they are active or not, because they will decide to dock up because of that threat.

So the question is, how is anyone supposed to know if a cloaky player are active or afk?

If he's active, then sure, he can do whatever he like, but if he's actually are afk, then you should NOT still be able to disrupt others on what they are doing. The second you undock from a station, you are not supposed to be safe in ANY ways. It's that simple.

I'm also a 2004 player who have been playing all the years, so i know every damn mechanics, tactics and tricks in this game. So yes, i support the OP's idea. His ideas might not be 100% like he want it to be if it ends up in EVE, but the fact that no one should be safe while in space, i will support to get afk cloakers more vulnerable while they are in space.

And lastly, those who think afk cloaking is fine must be blind or stupid, because it's pretty clear that there is alot of problems with afk cloaking when you see how many topics that have been made about this from earlier.

Mag's wrote:
Gather intel? I'm sorry but I thought it was the AFK part you were targeting here. Isn't intel gathering an active pursuit?

How are we supposed to know if this cloaker is active or not?

That's the problem here. And because of that problem, it will disrupt the other players in that system no matter if the cloaker is active or afk. And this will make those other players there to dock up no matter what. See the problem here?


Right, you can't rat with several buddies in corp/alliance in PvP ships now can you. Something like that? Why that is just crazy talk!

Roll

"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

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#236 - 2013-09-23 07:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
NightmareX wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Gather intel? I'm sorry but I thought it was the AFK part you were targeting here. Isn't intel gathering an active pursuit?

How are we supposed to know if this cloaker is active or not?

That's the problem here. And because of that problem, it will disrupt the other players in that system no matter if the cloaker is active or afk. And this will make those other players there to dock up no matter what. See the problem here?


So you don't like the fact that someone else is in the system you are in and you don't know if they are active or AFK? Seems a little risk averse to me and you will never know if any player, be they cloaked or otherwise is AFK. Perhaps you shouldn't be down there at all. Perhaps jump back to Hi-Sec where the free intel that Local provides means nothing and people maintain situational awareness or HTFU!

Cov-Ops ships are as flimsy as a wet tissue, he lands, kill that S.O.B. and quick in case he lights a cyno. Don't have guns...you've had a good minutes warning someone was in system...did you catch him on D-Scan at a gate? No? Then active Intel gathering fail...dock up or bounce safes.

Cloaking and Cov-Ops working as intended...and the reason there's so many threads on this is the fact that all the risk averse tear producers don't want to damage their ISK\Hour by docking up\GTFO\bring some friends in PVP ships.

The cause of your fear of the so called "AFK Cloaker" is 1) Your inability to be prepared 2) Your inability to be willing to deal with that cloaker should he land on you 3) Local

The last is the magic part really, Local, that free intel channel that announces someone's presence before they've even gotten through the door like a guest announcer at a ball. Anyone remember bacon? How the tears must have flooded the risk averse homes when that was stopped.
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#237 - 2013-09-23 15:25:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, you can't rat with several buddies in corp/alliance in PvP ships now can you. Something like that? Why that is just crazy talk!

Roll

Why do i have to rat with several buddies just to be sure i can survive this unknown afk cloaker in local who might aswell sit and masturbate to a porn movie.

So the question is, why should we be threatened to a cloaked afk guy who sits and masturbate to a porn movie (to take an example) ?

If there had been any ways to actually see if the cloaker is active or afk, it would be something else then.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#238 - 2013-09-23 15:30:08 UTC
NightmareX wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Right, you can't rat with several buddies in corp/alliance in PvP ships now can you. Something like that? Why that is just crazy talk!

Roll

Why do i have to rat with several buddies just to be sure i can survive this unknown afk cloaker in local who might aswell sit and ********** to a **** movie.

So the question is, why should we be threatened to a cloaked afk guy who sits and ********** to a **** movie (to take an example) ?

If there had been any ways to actually see if the cloaker is active or afk, it would be something else then.


You chose to live in nullsec, you are at risk with everything you do. You can mitigate that risk by changing your fits, or flying in a group. You don't "have" to do these things, you're free to go about as you please - but you're at greater risk if you do.

If you don't like this, you don't have to be in nullsec.

Don't demand changes to the mechanics because you refuse to acknowledge the area of the game you're in and what it's mechanics are
NightmareX
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#239 - 2013-09-23 15:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
NightmareX wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Gather intel? I'm sorry but I thought it was the AFK part you were targeting here. Isn't intel gathering an active pursuit?

How are we supposed to know if this cloaker is active or not?

That's the problem here. And because of that problem, it will disrupt the other players in that system no matter if the cloaker is active or afk. And this will make those other players there to dock up no matter what. See the problem here?


So you don't like the fact that someone else is in the system you are in and you don't know if they are active or AFK? Seems a little risk averse to me and you will never know if any player, be they cloaked or otherwise is AFK. Perhaps you shouldn't be down there at all. Perhaps jump back to Hi-Sec where the free intel that Local provides means nothing and people maintain situational awareness or HTFU!

Cov-Ops ships are as flimsy as a wet tissue, he lands, kill that S.O.B. and quick in case he lights a cyno. Don't have guns...you've had a good minutes warning someone was in system...did you catch him on D-Scan at a gate? No? Then active Intel gathering fail...dock up or bounce safes.

Cloaking and Cov-Ops working as intended...and the reason there's so many threads on this is the fact that all the risk averse tear producers don't want to damage their ISK\Hour by docking up\GTFO\bring some friends in PVP ships.

The cause of your fear of the so called "AFK Cloaker" is 1) Your inability to be prepared 2) Your inability to be willing to deal with that cloaker should he land on you 3) Local

The last is the magic part really, Local, that free intel channel that announces someone's presence before they've even gotten through the door like a guest announcer at a ball. Anyone remember bacon? How the tears must have flooded the risk averse homes when that was stopped.

Yup, if you are afk, you should in NO WAY be able to threaten anyone. That's the problem.

Oh also, i live in empire now. Just look at the alliance and corp i'm in. But that's not the point, the point is that i have been doing this cloaky stuffs my self and i know how much it affects those who are in local. I have both been afk and active while spying on others. So i know how this works.

You said this: The cause of your fear of the so called "AFK Cloaker" is 1) Your inability to be prepared 2) Your inability to be willing to deal with that cloaker should he land on you 3) Local

To that i will say that you have to be prepeared all the time if you know there is a cloaker or neutral in your system, even if the cloaker is afk. But the point is that even if you are prepeared, it wont help you because the second you are ready to react to that threat is the second the cloaker will uncloak and activate his cyno, witch means it's to late and it means there is nothing the prepeared player can do to stop it and to stop him from dying.

That's why it's an unfair advantage. The only little risk you have is the first seconds when you uncloaks and activates the cyno. But once you have jumped in your fleet, there is absolutely no risks at all for that cyno pilot as he will get remote reps or even survive as the others who jumped in managed to kill the target so fast.

See the problem?

The affected players here have either to be prepeared all the time no matter what, change system / region or simply just die. So why shouldn't they have a way to find you when you can find them so easily?

There is no risks at all for the afk cloakers while having HUUUUUUGE rewards in the longer run. You know this and you do everything to defend this as you use this tactic actively. That's why it needs to be a way to actually try and find those afk cloakers so they can get rid of that threat. Again, if the cloaker is active, it's all fine and he wont be found. But if he actually are afk while being in space, you should be able to find him and get him out of your systems.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
You chose to live in nullsec, you are at risk with everything you do. You can mitigate that risk by changing your fits, or flying in a group. You don't "have" to do these things, you're free to go about as you please - but you're at greater risk if you do.

If you don't like this, you don't have to be in nullsec.

Don't demand changes to the mechanics because you refuse to acknowledge the area of the game you're in and what it's mechanics are

Read my text over in the same post here.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2013-09-23 16:19:05 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
So let's say that Local is taken


if local is nerfed (I dont demand complete removal of it), cloak should be nerfed too then, thats right. But your ideas all come up on forums about afk cloaking completely ignore this true issue initially.


to be fair whilst your (and others) argument that local is over powered has merit and remains valid OP's idea is the first nerf to cloaking i have heard that didn't have be screaming nononononoNONONONO. Combined with a delayed local and/or removing cloaked ships from local and i think we are closer to a "solution" than we have been for ages.
especially if cloaked ships are removed from local then something like OP suggests would almost be required and would promote more active patrolling of territory.
i placed solution in inverted commas because i really don't have strong views on local or afk cloakers. i don't see that either need fixing but i agree that a change to one should come with a change to the other.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85