These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jita Akachi
Doomheim
#1521 - 2015-03-17 16:28:42 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


76 pages, still no arguments.

Snuff Box, shadow cartel etc has many cloacked alt in low sec ready to hotdrop and no one whine.
Cloacking is fine and don't have to become boring just for some null resident afraid by one name in local. If a single capsuler in local disrupt their activity, they just does not deserve sovereignty.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1522 - 2015-03-17 16:29:14 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


So the mere fact that im logged in advertises to everyone in local that ive been present at my keyboard in the last 5 minutes?

No. Not unless you change local.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1523 - 2015-03-17 16:58:42 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
Any change to cloaking is bad. Especially because cloaking is not a problem where I live in wspace. The idea to change cloakimg keeps coming from lazy nullbears who use the local channel as their crutch.

CCP will not change cloaking. Even their recent proposal to change the uncloaking mechanic was reversed. It would have affected wspace too much to justify going ahead with it just to balance bombing runs.

You nullbears can whine, complain, argue and attempt to give ideas of nerfing cloaking. However, it's all wasted time. Cloaking will not change.

Delayed local is the best solution. Having to work for Intel, and maintain gate control is where nullsec should go. Any well defended stronghold has guards at the gates. If you leave them open, its your fault when you get attacked. We maintain scouts on our wormholes. When there's a threat, we fight for hole control. Failing to control that avenue is why we use scouts. We dont have the crutches of Local to lean on. Nullsec should not be such an easy place to lIve. Easy breeds lazy which results in greedy, fat nullbears.


I wonder if you would feel the same way if not only could you NOT close the entrances to your space, but that they were visible to anyone in adjacent systems, cynos worked, and there were easily accessible information (in and out of game) on things like # of rats killed and average # of players logged in in your preferred w-space system? I'm thinking you'd probably be singing a new tune.

The space you live in comes with a fair degree of "stealth" already, so comparisons are a bit strained and to make simplistic comparisons like you have done are not very well thought out.


I'd love to be able to cyno into another wormhole system. Especially covert cyno. It would make wormhole life more exciting.

I am 100% in favor of removing local from nullsec and making wspace harder and more dangerous too.
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#1524 - 2015-03-17 17:30:07 UTC
I have a very simple, and hopefully rather fair solution to AFK cloaking:

Change cloaking in the following ways:

1) Cloaking no longer hides you anywhere completely. You show up on Dscan, overview, combat-probes, everywhere.

BUT on grid the following new rules would apply:

2) Cloaking inhibits targeting both ways, hides all details about the ship on the overview, esp. distance, ship type and pilot. The overview would only show a generic description, like "cloaked entity" and offer the option to approach, or if far enough out, to warp to. Also, no bracket visible in space. Other players can see the same translucent model, you get to see yourself, so people could guess ship types.

3) No more proximity decloaking. Proximity check before enabling cloak could still be in place though.

This way, it would be fairly hard to engage a cloaky, but not strictly impossible. If someone was AFK cloaking, you could scan him down and fly towards him, until you saw your ship bounce off. Then you could attack with smartbombs. Attacking with bombing runs would be rather tricky, since you would have to measure your distance indirectly (perhaps with a dedicated "bumb and take the hurt" ship).

Actively piloted cloakies get quite a boost during gate travel, by removing proximity decloaks. But on the other hand, they get exposed to smartbombs. Generally speaking: It still would be a powerful defensive tool, but smartbombs would act as a countermeasure. Maybe even open up the opportunity for dedicated anti-cloak/smartbomb frigs and cruisers.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1525 - 2015-03-17 19:40:57 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


77 pages, and its almost like you read none of them. Especially when a script can push that button for you with a randomised buffer interval every 5mins, so yah great idea genius. Bet that inflatable dartboard was yours too.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1526 - 2015-03-17 19:54:34 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F

Your solution is to make the cloaked pilot incapable of maintaining a presence, with any expectation that they are not a viable threat.

As this uncertainty is a keystone element in spurring PvE players to gamble, and risk encountering a hostile in the process, you would be removing any uncertainty about any non-friendly name listed.

Knowing this, it is highly probable that cloaked pilots would not bother, as the effort to create needed uncertainty would be doomed to failure as a result.

You also seem to have the bizarre notion that players make ships capable of evading PvP ships at gate camps and roams, just so they can find nothing else to fight except these same ships piloted by the PvE players who reshipped, assuming the cloaked players still show up for no properly explained reason.

This solution changes the balance, on the weak foundation that current gameplay is not currently balanced.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1527 - 2015-03-17 20:01:53 UTC
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:
I have a very simple, and hopefully rather fair solution to AFK cloaking:

Change cloaking in the following ways:

1) Cloaking no longer hides you anywhere completely. You show up on Dscan, overview, combat-probes, everywhere.

BUT on grid the following new rules would apply:

2) Cloaking inhibits targeting both ways, hides all details about the ship on the overview, esp. distance, ship type and pilot. The overview would only show a generic description, like "cloaked entity" and offer the option to approach, or if far enough out, to warp to. Also, no bracket visible in space. Other players can see the same translucent model, you get to see yourself, so people could guess ship types.

3) No more proximity decloaking. Proximity check before enabling cloak could still be in place though.

This way, it would be fairly hard to engage a cloaky, but not strictly impossible. If someone was AFK cloaking, you could scan him down and fly towards him, until you saw your ship bounce off. Then you could attack with smartbombs. Attacking with bombing runs would be rather tricky, since you would have to measure your distance indirectly (perhaps with a dedicated "bumb and take the hurt" ship).

Actively piloted cloakies get quite a boost during gate travel, by removing proximity decloaks. But on the other hand, they get exposed to smartbombs. Generally speaking: It still would be a powerful defensive tool, but smartbombs would act as a countermeasure. Maybe even open up the opportunity for dedicated anti-cloak/smartbomb frigs and cruisers.


So you created a method to resolve cloaked presence, but only allowing two outcomes:

1. The cloaked player is forced out or destroyed.
2. The cloaked player is able to remain, but in so doing confirms they are active, and PvE activity is unsafe as a result.

Nowhere do I see anything given to the cloaked player in exchange for becoming an actionable target.

Like, for example, the locals in the system do NOT get a free warning by local adding in their name, thereby warning all residents, as well as telling them a 'hunt the cloaky' minigame had just been started for their amusement.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1528 - 2015-03-17 20:18:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

As this uncertainty is a keystone element in spurring PvE players to gamble, and risk encountering a hostile in the process, you would be removing any uncertainty about any non-friendly name listed.

Nikk, you really need to let go of your myopic singular fascination with PvE. Things get clear and easy when you focus on mechanics and not specific instances.

Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Screw the PvE vs PvP yartard sideshow, the real issues have always been assets in space being at risk, force projection, and instant intel through local (the last being artificially forced upon this topic as a "counter balancing yada yada", which has now been addressed by an actual dev, which I only include to show I am fair ;)).

More specifically, my original statement of the relevant issues was this:

Harry Saq back on page 34 wrote:
1. Cloaking should not be free or indefinite, it should have both a cost/fuel consumption and require somekind of periodic interaction to maintain.

2. Cloaking should have a risk beyond fitting nuisance. There should be some tools to be able to scan cloakers (especially if something like point 1 isn't introduced).

3. It's not the cloak but the cyno that makes them ridiculous. Being able to drop a cyno instantly introduces the silly force projection from a distance...that I think was recently addressed as a mechanic that wasn't so desirable. When points 1 and 2 don't exist, this makes point 3 silly and broken. With 1 and 2, point 3 is manageable, counter-able, and working as intended.

4. The local argument (that it is because we see each other in local and the OP intel yada yada) is beyond the scope and deserves its own discussion. I say this because "local intel" affects a great many other mechanics and behaviors as well, and is not uniquely associated with this issue over any of the other issues it creates.


Anyway, not meaning to single you out specifically, but I made my arguments in the late 30s early 40s pages of this perpetual going in circles thread.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1529 - 2015-03-17 21:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Thoirdhealbhach wrote:
I have a very simple, and hopefully rather fair solution to AFK cloaking:

Change cloaking in the following ways:

1) Cloaking no longer hides you anywhere completely. You show up on Dscan, overview, combat-probes, everywhere.

BUT on grid the following new rules would apply:

2) Cloaking inhibits targeting both ways, hides all details about the ship on the overview, esp. distance, ship type and pilot. The overview would only show a generic description, like "cloaked entity" and offer the option to approach, or if far enough out, to warp to. Also, no bracket visible in space. Other players can see the same translucent model, you get to see yourself, so people could guess ship types.

3) No more proximity decloaking. Proximity check before enabling cloak could still be in place though.

This way, it would be fairly hard to engage a cloaky, but not strictly impossible. If someone was AFK cloaking, you could scan him down and fly towards him, until you saw your ship bounce off. Then you could attack with smartbombs. Attacking with bombing runs would be rather tricky, since you would have to measure your distance indirectly (perhaps with a dedicated "bumb and take the hurt" ship).

Actively piloted cloakies get quite a boost during gate travel, by removing proximity decloaks. But on the other hand, they get exposed to smartbombs. Generally speaking: It still would be a powerful defensive tool, but smartbombs would act as a countermeasure. Maybe even open up the opportunity for dedicated anti-cloak/smartbomb frigs and cruisers.


And here we see it one more time...nerf cloaks but leave the flawless and advantage of local for those who don't want risk.

No.

Harry Saq wrote:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.


We have been down this road before, many times. Until something is announced in a given patch nothing has been ceded. We can hope CCP will want to nerf local and cloaks...but...well lets just say my prior probability of that happening is not that high at the moment.

Added via edit:
You also made your "initial comments" well before the comments by CCP Fozzie. So, you'll have to pardon me on my skepticism that you really do see the full picture and are making a sincere contribution. Your initial post to me looks like it was intentionally slanted in favor of nerfing cloaks and leaving local un-touched and thereby creating an imbalance in the mechanics.

"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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1530 - 2015-03-17 23:47:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel had said:
As this uncertainty is a keystone element in spurring PvE players to gamble, and risk encountering a hostile in the process, you would be removing any uncertainty about any non-friendly name listed.

Harry Saq responded:
Nikk, you really need to let go of your myopic singular fascination with PvE. Things get clear and easy when you focus on mechanics and not specific instances.

Nikk replies now:
Only with a conflict with PvE does this actually become an issue, normally with sov null as the backdrop.
An AFK Cloaked player in high sec, or friendly sov null, pretty much a non issue. In a wormhole, everyone is cloaked at some point.

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.

Harry Saq commented:
Screw the PvE vs PvP yartard sideshow, the real issues have always been assets in space being at risk, force projection, and instant intel through local (the last being artificially forced upon this topic as a "counter balancing yada yada", which has now been addressed by an actual dev, which I only include to show I am fair ;)).

Nikk replies now:
This thread is not about cloaking in general.
It is about: AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals
AFK cloaking is a non-issue without local, or where local provides too much cluttered data to make a single non-friendly entry have the same intel value, as it can in sov null.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#1531 - 2015-03-18 13:25:56 UTC
Quote:

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.


Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1532 - 2015-03-18 14:06:11 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


77 pages, and its almost like you read none of them. Especially when a script can push that button for you with a randomised buffer interval every 5mins, so yah great idea genius. Bet that inflatable dartboard was yours too.


So your counter-argument is to break the ToS/EULA? gg enjoy your permaban.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Jita Akachi
Doomheim
#1533 - 2015-03-18 16:24:51 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


77 pages, and its almost like you read none of them. Especially when a script can push that button for you with a randomised buffer interval every 5mins, so yah great idea genius. Bet that inflatable dartboard was yours too.


So your counter-argument is to break the ToS/EULA? gg enjoy your permaban.


Move your mouse or press a key isn't against ToS/EULA, and the eve client will not see anything else. You have to be realistic.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1534 - 2015-03-18 20:27:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Quote:

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.


Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show.


Yet we have seen this before. CCP Dev makes a comment somewhere...people glomb on to it start talking about it. CCP, possibly even the Dev himself, back tracks. We are left with what we currently have.

So, while you can point to that sound cloud...color me rather dubious it will mean frak all any time soon or not so soon.

"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
#1535 - 2015-03-18 20:37:59 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


77 pages, and its almost like you read none of them. Especially when a script can push that button for you with a randomised buffer interval every 5mins, so yah great idea genius. Bet that inflatable dartboard was yours too.


So your counter-argument is to break the ToS/EULA? gg enjoy your permaban.


Unfortunately is would be very, very hard for CCP to detect.

But logging people off due to 5 minutes of inactivity would be just blindingly stupid. There are completely legitimate forms of game play that require very little direct input to the client. The person might be active on something like TS, but may only be watching what is going on on the client (e.g. the player is a scout). Even logging people out after a substantial amount of time...for what purpose so some guy can feel safer while ratting in null? That's the justification? No.

"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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1536 - 2015-03-18 21:15:04 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
76 pages, when the answer is so simple (it really is).

F


77 pages, and its almost like you read none of them. Especially when a script can push that button for you with a randomised buffer interval every 5mins, so yah great idea genius. Bet that inflatable dartboard was yours too.


So your counter-argument is to break the ToS/EULA? gg enjoy your permaban.


Unfortunately is would be very, very hard for CCP to detect.

But logging people off due to 5 minutes of inactivity would be just blindingly stupid. There are completely legitimate forms of game play that require very little direct input to the client. The person might be active on something like TS, but may only be watching what is going on on the client (e.g. the player is a scout). Even logging people out after a substantial amount of time...for what purpose so some guy can feel safer while ratting in null? That's the justification? No.

AFK cloaking is a completely legitimate form of game "play" I thought??

I think a miner might take more than 5 minutes to fill up with ore as well. (Procurer with not-the-best boosts/skills perhaps)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1537 - 2015-03-19 13:28:11 UTC
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Quote:

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.


Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show.


By suggesting that CCP has adopted a stance on local, he is implying soomething CCP has not at all stated, or to the best of my awareness implied.
Rumors will serve this discussion poorly, so I am including the relevant quoted section below.

Quite simply, between 1:12 and 1:15 on the soundcloud recording where AFK cloaking is discussed, he says no such thing about local being either kept or removed, or even changed.

In fact, in his own words from the soundcloud:
It's very important that it be possible to disrupt people's, ehh, money making in null sec,
and that AFK cloaking is one of the most effective ways that we have right now to do so.

We are, ehh, we're not worried about cloaked ships being somehow overpowered,
they, it turns out, while a ship is cloaked it has very little DPS,
but ah, we understand that it has a pretty big psychological effect.

We would like to make some changes that all tie into that sort of system, in the future,
it may not be the changes that people, ehh, are expecting though, for instance I can tell you AFK cloaking is not an issue in wormhole space, and there is a very good reason for that.

(Comments about Fozzy indirectly saying local would be removed from all null sec space)

I cannot confirm or deny that...

The idea of removing, or changing the way local works has been brought up many times,
it is not the first time CCP has brought this up.

I did not hear anything to suggest CCP ceded the argument concerning local, but rather, (and very pointedly), saying they would not commit to either changing or leaving it alone.

People like jumping to conclusions, but CCP is not attempting to fuel the rumor mill on this.
They ARE, however, quite specifically aware of how and why the problem does exist.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#1538 - 2015-03-19 13:53:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Quote:

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.


Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show.


Yet we have seen this before. CCP Dev makes a comment somewhere...people glomb on to it start talking about it. CCP, possibly even the Dev himself, back tracks. We are left with what we currently have.

So, while you can point to that sound cloud...color me rather dubious it will mean frak all any time soon or not so soon.


I was more pointing to the soundcloud cause its a start to show that CCP is starting to at least acknowledge things. Granted in a highly neutral stance but still. And yes. You are right. So far I have become become very wary that CCP knows how to fix their game.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1539 - 2015-03-19 14:32:16 UTC
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Quote:

Harry Saq commented:
Now that the local argument has been ceded by CCP Fozzie this discussion needs to move on to the remaining issue involving cloak mechanics, which is assets in space being at risk.

Nikk replies now:
You'll need to document this point better, as I haven't heard it yet.
Local is intertwined with cloaking, in this context more than most.


Why are you being difficult on this point, of all of them? I am pretty sure he is refering to the soundcloud that was posted with Fozzie talking about AFK cloaking in the Down Under Show.


Yet we have seen this before. CCP Dev makes a comment somewhere...people glomb on to it start talking about it. CCP, possibly even the Dev himself, back tracks. We are left with what we currently have.

So, while you can point to that sound cloud...color me rather dubious it will mean frak all any time soon or not so soon.


I was more pointing to the soundcloud cause its a start to show that CCP is starting to at least acknowledge things. Granted in a highly neutral stance but still. And yes. You are right. So far I have become become very wary that CCP knows how to fix their game.


Yes, clearly the soundcloud was the reference, and the point is to expand singular minded commentary. If this then this etc etc.

Also, mechanics matter, players will do what they do, the focus on PvE vs PvP is tired, and misses the point, but we already talked about this pages ago.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1540 - 2015-03-19 14:56:37 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
I was more pointing to the soundcloud cause its a start to show that CCP is starting to at least acknowledge things. Granted in a highly neutral stance but still. And yes. You are right. So far I have become become very wary that CCP knows how to fix their game.


Yes, clearly the soundcloud was the reference, and the point is to expand singular minded commentary. If this then this etc etc.

Also, mechanics matter, players will do what they do, the focus on PvE vs PvP is tired, and misses the point, but we already talked about this pages ago.


This is not a thread about cloaking in general, or how to improve cloaking in general.

It is about a subset of cloaking, where it conflicts with local chat in sov null specifically.

Without PvE hulls, as an asset in the equation, the concern regarding an AFK cloaked pilot is considerably and significantly reduced.

In short, noone cares as much when they are flying PvP ready hulls, as they expect to be able to handle the cloaked player itself.
Whether they can hot drop is a potential concern, yes, but not as much, since the expectation that additional PvP hulls are more probable when a PvP ship is already present.
(They don't tend to operate solo, with a known hostile present)

TL:DR; Without PvE ships being affected, fewer care nearly as much about AFK cloaking.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...