Assembly Hall

ok as much as I have tried, I have decided that I am not explaining my position or those of the people I have been discussing this issue with properly.
There has been a recent article on EN24 that I believe nails it.
I agree with most items in this article.

http://evenews24.com/2014/02/25/tuppence-and-tinfoil-would-you-like-some-covert-with-your-ops/

Thoughts on the solutions presented here?

Given that CCP have never provided a single response on a single thread related to the idiocy of the current AFK Cloak mechanic in the last 8 years I see little chance that they will extract a digit and respond/comment now.

I am glad to say another brainless ****** has decided to start camping my current home system 23.5/7 - this has now been going on nearly continuously for ~5 months in all nearby upgraded systems. Each person finally works out it is a useless griefing tactic that eliminates PvE and PvP content, just in time for the next **** to appear.....

And on that happy note CCP and CSM can continue to ignore the most commented long-run issue in the game without a single attempt to improve it...

easy to come up with ways to catch them once (or twice or three times) ...involving other players and ships... then they re-ship and are back in 10 minutes.... there is no counter that works for months until CCP bother their butts and think. 0.0 is a waste of space full of station spinning players

Cloaky ships are balanced by the simple mechanic that when uncloaked they are extremely easy to kill. What the carebears are complaining about is that they can't dock up their little ratting ship at the first sign of threat and have a way to stay hidden in their station until said threat goes away so they can go back to making their isk.

I feel you are being disingenuous here.

You are suggesting that you are wanting to use a ship, that is simply not competent to deal with hostiles.
Because the hostiles that are indicated as threatening you are believed to be cloaked, you avoid them by not using the ship.

You leave out this, which is an obvious detail which I feel bears stating in this context:
You would avoid ANY hostile you believed to be a threat, simply because you are not piloting a ship you would choose to have any unplanned encounter with.

Cloaked / uncloaked, no difference, you want to have the opportunity to swap ships, so you feel better prepared.
(I am giving you presumed intention of being willing to fight, here)

I believe it is not reasonable to expect competing players to give you a safety advantage, just so you can feel more secure using a relatively defenseless vessel.

I think it is more reasonable that you should play the spaceship flying MMO, in a spaceship that can deal with meeting other players.
If that means we need to make your PvE ship into something more practical, let's consider that direction.

I feel blocking player interaction because it is not convenient for you makes no sense for an MMO.

All this discussion is getting us no where, we have been through all of it before.
Seraph brings the perspective of the cloaky attackers, having been a part or Bombers Bar I welcomed his input.
however I do find it lacking in many aspects and that his arguments tend to be very Pro AFK play.
Nick on the other hand challenges both sides of the questions and begs people to think about what they are saying. In the end we seek the same, Better ways of Interaction. That is the main topic of this thread.
I believe there is a use for cloaked camping. I also believe that pilots engaged in this activity should be encouraged to be present in game and not out getting lunch or fapping on another computer.
All three of us agree that Cloaked ships should not appear in local.
our opinions differ on how to go about this.
we have everything from changing the way pilots receive intel, and what kind of intel from where.
to mobile structures to changes in the cloaking mechanic.
Please help the good ideas coming with arguments pro and con, and quit it with the bickering.

And add a nice cyno timer so that I can **** you up or GTFO before your "active players" arrive. Sounds legit.

The problem with local as an intel tool is that players abuse it both for intel and harassment. The problem of removing local as an intel tool is that it will remove the intel abuse but not the harassment abuse.

The key here is the word abuse, both intel and harassment are valid player choices.

I do support that something needs to be done with afk cloaking. Because it's not balanced as it is now.

Now, someone is saying if the cloaker is hunting after targets to drop a cyno on, they are active. Someone is saying that the cloakers are active if they are gathering intels on something. This is true to some points. Yes, this is true if you looks through the cloakerts POV.

The problem here is that it's not so easy if you looks through the other peoples POV that are in local. Because how the cloaking works now, the other peoples don't know if the cloakers are active or not. And because of that, they will automaticly pretend that they infact ARE active and always will be prepeared for them.

Here comes the issues with that. Why do EVERYONE in local have to be prepeared for something that MIGHT be afk?

Why do the other peoples in local have to works their asses off by defending them self to something that might be afk?

Why do the others in local have to make HUUUUUGE EFFORT to defend them self while the cloakers doesn't have to make ANY efforts to cause fear upon others while being afk?

Why don't the cloakers have to make as much effort as the others in local to achieve something instead of gaining free benefits for being afk?

Yeah, i know you have to barely lift a finger to gain intel on someone, but how much effort is that compared to how much effort everyone else in local have to do to defend them self to someone that again might be afk?

The issue here is not to touch local, PERIOD. Anyone who thinks removing local will solve this is delusional and just want to make the game 10000 times worser for everyone just to solve one thing in EVE.

The simple solution to fix this is to create an afk timer. The afk timer will kick in if you haven't been active in 30 mins. This will mean if you lift a finger by pressing on something in EVE within those 30 mins, you wont get logged back to the character screen (yes, this is my idea on how to fix the afk game).

If you actually are afk, you wouldn't care if you would get logged back to the character screen. If you actually cares about this, then you would make some effort to not let the afk timer kick in on you.

This afk timer that kicks you back to the character screen will also solve the issue with afk mining / afk mission running (as long as they aren't using any kind of macro softwares witch is illegal to use anyways).

This is a very easy solution to fix many of the afk issues that are in EVE. This doesn't even have downsides as an MMO game is focused on those who are actively playing the game. Those who are not playing the game should not get ANY benefits like they do now in EVE.

So again, those who want's to remove local to fix this are here to ruin the game for everyone rather than fixing the core issues that are in EVE.

You clearly didn't take my point, so let me explain again.

Why do others in local gain benefits ONLY when they do make some efforts to gain those benefits while afk cloakers can gain many benefits by making absolutely no efforts what so ever or doing nothing or being afk?

Yes, the afk'ers gains the benefits of causing fear upon others in local and denies them resources as it forces them to dock up or leave the system because there is no ways to figure out if they are afk or not, witch makes everyone else in local to be in a defense mode, even to players who are afk cloaked.

That's the unbalanced part i'm talking about.

Why should afk'ers gain benefits by being afk in an MMO game that is all about those who are actively playing the game?

Why not change EVE so it makes those who afk alot to actually make some effort to stay in space instead of getting booted to the character screen?

Is that so much to ask for?

Snipped for brevity.

The primary issue, as I read above, seems to question the need for players to make an effort.

Why do "defending" players find themselves in a position to defend?
While it is true, in almost every scenario I can find, that they have chosen to fly a ship which is impaired for combat, why should this be an issue?

Ok, perhaps this bears more explanation. These combat impaired ships usually are specialized for ISK generating activities, often to the expense of even basic defense capability in many cases.

EVE is an MMO.
The expectation of privacy from hostile players is not a reasonable expectation here.
Your allies must stop them, when they attempt to reach you, or it becomes your responsibility.
Gate camps and roams, are the keystone elements of this defense, the rest being thrown together as needed.

As might be expected, the ships best capable of evading these defenses are the only ones left on the field still able to threaten others with.
For reasons ranging from combat limitations, to target availability, they are often targeting PvE ships.

Your real question, stripping away the layers of misdirection and pretty labels, seems to be this:

Why do I have to be prepared to encounter other players in an MMO?