These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1681 - 2015-03-27 16:52:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
It does not force anyone to do anything. The cloaker is cloaked, thus can not do ANYTHING whilst cloaked. What it does apparently is it messes with your head, and you are not capable of handling the "fear" that YOU have generated.
LOL, absolute horseshit and you know it. If AFK cloaking didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist. The truth is that since you can't tell the difference between an AFK cloak and an active cloaker, you have to assume that all cloakers are active in order to mitigate risk. Tell me, if we have 10 guns, and we knew only 8 of them were loaded, would you let me fire a couple at you at random? After all, an empty firearm does no damage. No, you'd mitigate the risk by treating them all as if they were loaded and not allowing them to be fired at you.


No, I would wear a bullet proof outfit, and ignore you while I did my thing.

Then, if you DID show up where I could see you, I would take a shot at you instead.

The perception that a PvE player is defenseless is half the problem here.
The other half is the perception PvE must be harmless, by comparison.

We know this is the current dynamic, because we expect the PvE player to be in fear of a name alone, before even knowing the details of ship type and capability.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1682 - 2015-03-27 16:54:30 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If the solution is to force one side into an encounter, both sides should be susceptible to it.

Being able to hunt a cloaked player is comparable to hunting a PvE player inside a POS or outpost.
It's nothing like the same. For starters a POS and an outpost costs a **** load more than a cloaking device. Secondly, both the POS and the outpost can be attacked while a cloaker is invulnerable. Thirdly, in both those situations the PvE player can be directly observed for activity and reacted to when they become active, a cloaker cannot be observed in that way.

Honestly, it can't be possible for you to have read all the posts I know you have on AFK cloaking and still be this oblivious, citing the same used up arguments for why it's OK for players to maintain completely safety while undocked (this is what you are saying, you are saying yes to 100% safety without having to actually do anything when challenged). I'm going to write you off as a confirmed troll.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1683 - 2015-03-27 16:56:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
It does not force anyone to do anything. The cloaker is cloaked, thus can not do ANYTHING whilst cloaked. What it does apparently is it messes with your head, and you are not capable of handling the "fear" that YOU have generated.
LOL, absolute horseshit and you know it. If AFK cloaking didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist. The truth is that since you can't tell the difference between an AFK cloak and an active cloaker, you have to assume that all cloakers are active in order to mitigate risk. Tell me, if we have 10 guns, and we knew only 8 of them were loaded, would you let me fire a couple at you at random? After all, an empty firearm does no damage. No, you'd mitigate the risk by treating them all as if they were loaded and not allowing them to be fired at you.
No, I would wear a bullet proof outfit, and ignore you while I did my thing.

Then, if you DID show up where I could see you, I would take a shot at you instead.
You kinda missed the point on that one bro. The point is that a weapon you don't know is unloaded gets treated as a threat. You wearing a bullet proof outfit is you responding to that threat, so I guess thanks for proving my point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1684 - 2015-03-27 17:02:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
It does not force anyone to do anything. The cloaker is cloaked, thus can not do ANYTHING whilst cloaked. What it does apparently is it messes with your head, and you are not capable of handling the "fear" that YOU have generated.
LOL, absolute horseshit and you know it. If AFK cloaking didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist. The truth is that since you can't tell the difference between an AFK cloak and an active cloaker, you have to assume that all cloakers are active in order to mitigate risk. Tell me, if we have 10 guns, and we knew only 8 of them were loaded, would you let me fire a couple at you at random? After all, an empty firearm does no damage. No, you'd mitigate the risk by treating them all as if they were loaded and not allowing them to be fired at you.
No, I would wear a bullet proof outfit, and ignore you while I did my thing.

Then, if you DID show up where I could see you, I would take a shot at you instead.

You kinda missed the point on that one bro. The point is that a weapon you don't know is unloaded gets treated as a threat. You wearing a bullet proof outfit is you responding to that threat, so I guess thanks for proving my point.

No, I got the point.

You suggest the only defense to this uncertain threat is to stay under cover, and sacrifice activity by doing so.

I am pointing out that if your threat can be managed into acceptable terms for my defenses, I have no need for cover that costs me my PvE income.

HUGE difference.

Neutralizing your threat potential should not require either extreme of hunting you down, or cowering inside an outpost.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1685 - 2015-03-27 17:03:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Lucas Kell wrote:
Do you think it's right that someone who's not even in the same building as their PC should be completely safe indefinitely and able to have that effect with no ability for others to hunt them down?


No i dont. ive said this a hundred times by now.

the argument im making is that an AFK cloaker does not cripple a players ability to play. All he does is add uncertainty to the mix. and this is uncertainty that the rest of the game deals with already without it somehow 'breaking' the game.

Maranor quite clearly states that ratting whilst afk cloakers about is certain death, and so much certain death that you would lose more than you make. This is obviously a lie when people have been doing it for years and under current meta, even doing it AFK in carriers and ishtars.

what you all should have been doing in the first place is just going out and ratting anyways, with precautions in place to mitigate the threat of an afk cloaker. Sometiems you'll be attacked, sometimes that will involve a cyno. Sometimes you'll escape, sometimes you'll die, sometimes you'll crush the invading force.

This is part-and-parcel of the game.

Raphael Celestine wrote:

The problem with that is that if you can both A) infallibly detect when a hostile cloaky is present and B) infallibly determine whether said cloaky is active or AFK, you make it impossible for a cloaky to ever surprise an alert player.



^^^ gets it.

Lucas Kell wrote:
The point is that a weapon you don't know is unloaded gets treated as a threat. You wearing a bullet proof outfit is you responding to that threat, so I guess thanks for proving my point.


No, its preparing for a potential threat. People put the bullet proof vest on when they are going into a situation where they may be shot. Long before they know someone is pointing a gun at them.

something you can do before an afk cloaker is in local. something you can do if cloakers dont ever show up in local. What ive been telling people through out this thread.

If you only respond once a cloaker reveals himself, its already too late and youve missed your chance to do anything about it. Just like a freighter thats been bumped. There is plenty you can do leading up to these points however.

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

Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1686 - 2015-03-27 17:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Baaldor
Lucas Kell wrote:
LOL, absolute horseshit and you know it. If AFK cloaking didn't do anything, then it wouldn't exist. The truth is that since you can't tell the difference between an AFK cloak and an active cloaker, you have to assume that all cloakers are active in order to mitigate risk. Tell me, if we have 10 guns, and we knew only 8 of them were loaded, would you let me fire a couple at you at random? After all, an empty firearm does no damage. No, you'd mitigate the risk by treating them all as if they were loaded and not allowing them to be fired at you.


Nope, there is no one forcing anyone to do anything in this game. The actions you make, are yours alone. What it boils down to is the mentality behind the key board, period.

Baaldor wrote:
What I don't understand is why CCP has to accommodate players who want to maintain 100% safety while away from their PC for hours at a time and undocked.


I can say the very same about how you want complete security so you can continue to play a single player game.

Baaldor wrote:
I'm not saying they can;t be dealt with, but why should they be able to sit the untouched if they are inactive? If a miner was AFK and you blew him up, you'd say he deserved it for being inactive. Why does a cloaker not get the same treatment?.


What you are missing is that the majority can deal with it, the question I have to ask is how can they and you can not. And as far as the AFK miner...he made the choice, he could have easliy just docked up, pos'd up or logged off. He/she/it made a choice and you can't fix stupid. And trying to bridge someones ignorance and cloaking...yeah, no, this dog won't hunt.

Baaldor wrote:
Not at all, what it's saying is "give me the same chance to kill them when they are inactive as they have to kill me when I'm inactive".


Why, they are just sitting there not doing a damn thing. They have not shown aggression as they are supposedly afk. Once they uncloak and agress...well they are fair game.

What you are asking for is for CCP to soothe your insecurities.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1687 - 2015-03-27 17:12:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No, I got the point.

You suggest the only defense to this uncertain threat is to stay under cover, and sacrifice activity by doing so.
Lol, no, that's not what I suggested. What I suggested was simple, that an AFK cloaker projects risk which must be mitigated. How one chooses to mitigate that risk is irrelevant. You agreed with this by pointing out how you would mitigate that risk by increasing your defense.

So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1688 - 2015-03-27 17:16:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No, I got the point.

You suggest the only defense to this uncertain threat is to stay under cover, and sacrifice activity by doing so.
Lol, no, that's not what I suggested. What I suggested was simple, that an AFK cloaker projects risk which must be mitigated. How one chooses to mitigate that risk is irrelevant. You agreed with this by pointing out how you would mitigate that risk by increasing your defense.

So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?


Tell me what threat do they pose.

They are only safe while cloaked, and while cloaked they are not a threat to anyone.

Only when they decloak, threat may be present. that is of course they actually have a weapon system on the craft.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1689 - 2015-03-27 17:18:34 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?


The risk is inferred, not projected. Especially whilst inactive.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1690 - 2015-03-27 17:18:46 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
No i dont. ive said this a hundred times by now.
So then lets add the ability to hunt them down and make that easy to counter if the cloaker is active.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
the argument im making is that an AFK cloaker does not cripple a players ability to play. All he does is add uncertainty to the mix. and this is uncertainty that the rest of the game deals with already without it somehow 'breaking' the game.
Crippling or not it's irrelevant. A player who chooses to be inactive in space and still projects threat onto other players should be at risk of responsive action. If he's not there to counter himself then he should find himself podded. It's pretty simple.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
what you all should have been doing in the first place is just going out and ratting anyways, with precautions in place to mitigate the threat of an afk cloaker. Sometiems you'll be attacked, sometimes that will involve a cyno. Sometimes you'll escape, sometimes you'll die, sometimes you'll crush the invading force.
Some players do, some choose to evade, once again it's irrelevant how the player reacts to the threat, the threat should not be occurring from a player who's not even playing the game.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
No, its preparing for a potential threat.

something you can do before an afk cloaker is in local. something you can do if cloakers dont ever show up in local. What ive been telling people through out this thread.

If you only respond once a cloaker reveals himself, its already too late and youve missed your chance to do anything about it. Just like a freighter thats been bumped. There is plenty you can do leading up to these points however.
But then you still agree that a cloaker, active or inactive projects a level of threat, which was exactly my point. The existence of the cloaker is threat, him being in system is more threat and him being on grid is even more threat. What I'm saying is that if he chooses to go to bed or go to work he should become a threat that is easy to counter.

I honestly can't believe that you people are arguing to keep in the ability to maintain 100% safety while AFK in space. What are you, carebears?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1691 - 2015-03-27 17:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Baaldor wrote:
Tell me what threat do they pose.

They are only safe while cloaked, and while cloaked they are not a threat to anyone.

Only when they decloak, threat may be present. that is of course they actually have a weapon system on the craft.
OK, so returning to the previous analogy, if I have 10 guns, 2 are unloaded, would you allow 2 of them to be fired at you? After all you know that 2 of them pose no threat.

No, I doubt you'd be up for that. You know that some are empty, but you know others aren't, so you treat them all with a level of caution. In the same way, you know that some cloakers are AFK, but you certainly aren't going to act as if they are AFK. Therefore a player who is AFK in space and 100% safe from retaliation is able to appear as much of a threat as an active player off grid. I honestly believe that if you are AFK in space, then your right to safety is forfeit.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?
The risk is inferred, not projected. Especially whilst inactive.
Pedant.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1692 - 2015-03-27 17:24:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
No i dont. ive said this a hundred times by now.
So then lets add the ability to hunt them down and make that easy to counter if the cloaker is active.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
the argument im making is that an AFK cloaker does not cripple a players ability to play. All he does is add uncertainty to the mix. and this is uncertainty that the rest of the game deals with already without it somehow 'breaking' the game.
Crippling or not it's irrelevant. A player who chooses to be inactive in space and still projects threat onto other players should be at risk of responsive action. If he's not there to counter himself then he should find himself podded. It's pretty simple.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
what you all should have been doing in the first place is just going out and ratting anyways, with precautions in place to mitigate the threat of an afk cloaker. Sometiems you'll be attacked, sometimes that will involve a cyno. Sometimes you'll escape, sometimes you'll die, sometimes you'll crush the invading force.
Some players do, some choose to evade, once again it's irrelevant how the player reacts to the threat, the threat should not be occurring from a player who's not even playing the game.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
No, its preparing for a potential threat.

something you can do before an afk cloaker is in local. something you can do if cloakers dont ever show up in local. What ive been telling people through out this thread.

If you only respond once a cloaker reveals himself, its already too late and youve missed your chance to do anything about it. Just like a freighter thats been bumped. There is plenty you can do leading up to these points however.
But then you still agree that a cloaker, active or inactive projects a level of threat, which was exactly my point. The existence of the cloaker is threat, him being in system is more threat and him being on grid is even more threat. What I'm saying is that if he chooses to go to bed or go to work he should become a threat that is easy to counter.

I honestly can't believe that you people are arguing to keep in the ability to maintain 100% safety while AFK in space. What are you, carebears?


Threat is perceived not real.

Care-bears...? really?

Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1693 - 2015-03-27 17:25:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Tell me what threat do they pose.

They are only safe while cloaked, and while cloaked they are not a threat to anyone.

Only when they decloak, threat may be present. that is of course they actually have a weapon system on the craft.
OK, so returning to the previous analogy, if I have 10 guns, 2 are unloaded, would you allow 2 of them to be fired at you? After all you know that 2 of them pose no threat.

No, I doubt you'd be up for that. You know that some are empty, but you know others aren't, so you treat them all with a level of caution. In the same way, you know that some cloakers are AFK, but you certainly aren't going to act as if they are AFK. Therefore a player who is AFK in space and 100% safe from retaliation is able to appear as much of a threat as an active player off grid. I honestly believe that if you are AFK in space, then your right to safety is forfeit.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?
The risk is inferred, not projected. Especially whilst inactive.
Pedant.


Problem with you analogy...you can't fire any of them while cloaked.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1694 - 2015-03-27 17:38:04 UTC
Quote:
So then lets add the ability to hunt them down and make that easy to counter if the cloaker is active.


WIP

Quote:
Crippling or not it's irrelevant. A player who chooses to be inactive in space and still projects threat onto other players should be at risk of responsive action. If he's not there to counter himself then he should find himself podded. It's pretty simple.


Over reacting on the forums is a problem. and i intend to fight it.
If he intends to go afk, it should be possible for him to log off or find somewhere quiet to dock or to just sit in space for a few seconds for a bio break.

Quote:
Some players do, some choose to evade, once again it's irrelevant how the player reacts to the threat, the threat should not be occurring from a player who's not even playing the game.


Im fine with evading. Im not fine with there being no way to covertly hunt. im not fine with forum whining.

Quote:
But then you still agree that a cloaker, active or inactive projects a level of threat, which was exactly my point. The existence of the cloaker is threat, him being in system is more threat and him being on grid is even more threat. What I'm saying is that if he chooses to go to bed or go to work he should become a threat that is easy to counter.

I honestly can't believe that you people are arguing to keep in the ability to maintain 100% safety while AFK in space. What are you, carebears?


no. This is where the difference of project and infer is important.

The pressence of a cloaker (or anyone for that matter) is a possible threat. and by all means act accordingly. However, it may just be a passer by, it may just be someone whos afk. Neither of which are an actual threat. Its just the fact the defender does not know which for sure.

You dont wear the vest because you think you're going to be shot. You wear the vest because your going into dangerous territory and its possible to be shot at anytime. Null is definitely dangerous territory. Where the vest at all times. Be alert at all times, not just when a cloaker appears.

or run away at all times, never go into null.

just dont whine of the forums. dont say that the cloaker forces you to do anything. dont think you are entitled to ratting because you pay a sub.

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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1695 - 2015-03-27 17:39:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No, I got the point.

You suggest the only defense to this uncertain threat is to stay under cover, and sacrifice activity by doing so.
Lol, no, that's not what I suggested. What I suggested was simple, that an AFK cloaker projects risk which must be mitigated. How one chooses to mitigate that risk is irrelevant. You agreed with this by pointing out how you would mitigate that risk by increasing your defense.

So simply put, why should a player be able to be in space and project risk while being 100% safe even while inactive?

If I expect they cannot beat me, why should I care what else they do?

They are not projecting any threat, from my perspective.

They stopped being my problem, the moment I knew I could drag them behind the proverbial wood shed, and beat them senseless.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1696 - 2015-03-27 17:41:43 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Threat is perceived not real.
And yet needs to be responded to in the same way.

Baaldor wrote:
Care-bears...? really?
Yes, really. You are defending a mechanic which allows 100% safety for a subsection of your playstyle while able to have an effect on other players. That's very much a carebear attitude.

Baaldor wrote:
Problem with you analogy...you can't fire any of them while cloaked.
More a problem with your comprehension than the analogy itself. In this instance all cloakers are guns, ones who are active and thus can attack are loaded, while ones who are AFK and thus won't attack are empty.

And the point still remains. You can't claim that AFK cloakers pose no threat if they are AFK if there's no way to tell if they are AFK or not, since that means you must treat them all as active players or end up as an ALOD.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1697 - 2015-03-27 17:50:32 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Over reacting on the forums is a problem. and i intend to fight it.
If he intends to go afk, it should be possible for him to log off or find somewhere quiet to dock or to just sit in space for a few seconds for a bio break.
And while he's on that bio break if he chose to sit in space he should be every much at risk as any other player who chooses to do the same.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Im fine with evading. Im not fine with there being no way to covertly hunt. im not fine with forum whining.
But there are ways to covertly hunt, go look at the killboards. As for forum whining, if you against it then why are you here whining?

Daichi Yamato wrote:
no. This is where the difference of project and infer is important.

The pressence of a cloaker (or anyone for that matter) is a possible threat. and by all means act accordingly. However, it may just be a passer by, it may just be someone whos afk. Neither of which are an actual threat. Its just the fact the defender does not know which for sure.
Underline the key point. People do act accordingly. AFK cloaker know this, thus they maintain 100% safety while their character is present while they are AFK knowing full well that players have to act accordingly. This is what I have an issue with. If you want people to react to your presence, you should have to be present. If you **** off to bed you should expect a swift thrashing. It's really really simple.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
just dont whine of the forums. dont say that the cloaker forces you to do anything. dont think you are entitled to ratting because you pay a sub.
ROFL, says the guy whining on the forums. I've not claimed to be entitled to anything. If someone wants to hunt someone down, fine. If someone wants to blow someone up when they try to rat, fine. If someone wants to hover around in local looking threatening and never actually attack, fine. But if someone thinks they should maintain 100% safety while doing it without even having to be at their computer, then there's a problem, and CCP seem to be addressing that. Don't think you are entitled to 100% safe cloaking mechanics while you sleep because you pay a sub.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1698 - 2015-03-27 17:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Baaldor
Lucas Kell wrote:
Baaldor wrote:
Threat is perceived not real.
And yet needs to be responded to in the same way.

Baaldor wrote:
Care-bears...? really?
Yes, really. You are defending a mechanic which allows 100% safety for a subsection of your playstyle while able to have an effect on other players. That's very much a carebear attitude.

Baaldor wrote:
Problem with you analogy...you can't fire any of them while cloaked.
More a problem with your comprehension than the analogy itself. In this instance all cloakers are guns, ones who are active and thus can attack are loaded, while ones who are AFK and thus won't attack are empty.

And the point still remains. You can't claim that AFK cloakers pose no threat if they are AFK if there's no way to tell if they are AFK or not, since that means you must treat them all as active players or end up as an ALOD.


I have no problem with comprehending what you are trying to say, the issue I have is that you are justifying your own insecurities. Fear is not real, it is something you are having issues with in a video game.

And as far as the care-bear attitude, negative. it is no different that those data miners sitting in the station docked up and afk...i have no idea if they are out of the station or not. Thus they pose a threat?

Now, if CCP allowed me to shoot lcloaked, then I am a threat and by all means, let's set up a way to track them down and kill them. I will be up for that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1699 - 2015-03-27 17:53:18 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If I expect they cannot beat me, why should I care what else they do?

They are not projecting any threat, from my perspective.

They stopped being my problem, the moment I knew I could drag them behind the proverbial wood shed, and beat them senseless.
But they are. The only reason you are ready for them is because you've preemptively mitigated their risk as many players do. That doesn't mean they aren't a threat, it simply means you've identified them as a threat and dealt with that. And that still doesn't explain why 100% safety while AFK in space is something you think is a good idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1700 - 2015-03-27 18:00:58 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
I have no problem with comprehension of what you are trying to say, the issue I have is that you are justifying your won insecurities. Fear is not real, it is something you are having issues with in a video game.
Rofl, mate, it's got nothing to do with insecurities. It's to do with you claiming that AFK people are no threat when you know full well that the fact that you can;t tell they are AFK is exactly what gives them the power they have. If they actually had no impact they simply wouldn't exist.

Baaldor wrote:
And as far as the care-bear attitude, negative. it is no different that those data miners sitting in the station docked up and afk...i have no idea if they are out of the station or not. Thus they pose a threat?
Docked players can be observed for changes. To do anything they must undock which can be observed. If AFK cloakers could be observed for changes and responded to immediately when they move to take action they would be as useless as a docked up player. It's because they can move between active and inactive seamlessly that they pose a threat.

And yes, you are a carebear. You want 100% safety while undocked and in space even when you go AFK for any length of time. That is a carebear attitude. EVE is not safe, players can be shot without permission, HTFU.

Baaldor wrote:
Now, if CCP allowed me to shoot cloaked, then I am a threat and by all means, let's set up a way to track them down and kill them. I will be up for that.
If that were the case then people would also be able to shoot you while you were cloaked, making cloaking redundant. The chance CCP have suggested merely stop players being able to AFK for extended periods of time while cloaked. I honestly can't believe you guys have such a problem with that, since active cloakers will be unaffected, and you're all active cloakers that like to hunt people down, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.