These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1701 - 2015-03-27 18:12:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?



Actually, really what it boils down to. Seriously, is that jewbears do not want the cloakers there because they claim it prevents them from jewing.

And in reality, they just do no want anything to do with anyone else, they do not want to have anything to do with conflict. they do not want to fight All they want to do is have a single player game. Period. it has been the battle cry for this crap for the longest time.

And I do have a warning for you, just like everything else the sheep asks for to minimize threat of conflict...it comes back and bites them right in the ass. Every time.

because as I sit here, I have already figured out away if they do this....of pushing the "cloak hunters" poop in. And they will come wailing to the forums trying to nerf it further.

So, you know what, go for it, push for the nerf. And I can guarantee you the tactics will change and the term " hell camped" or "**** caged" will seem a much more enjoyable exercise.
Aeryn Maricadie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1702 - 2015-03-27 18:23:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
[quote=Baaldor]
[quote=Baaldor]. 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?


AFK cloaking is the only current counter to the OP intel channel that is local. The mere fact that PvE bears claim that they "can't" do anything while there is a single non-friendly pilot in local is proof that local is a ridiculous intel tool. If ratters are already too afraid to undock when the cloaker may simply be afk, does anyone think they will undock when the cloaky must be active? Which brings us to what the bears really want, which is to improve their favorite intel channel to the point of eliminating pretty much all risk.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1703 - 2015-03-27 18:28:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


Preemptively mitigating their threat, makes them impotent.
Effectively, they could log out, for all the difference they make.

If we want to play hide and seek, and seeking the cloaked ship becomes the goal rather than PvE...
Then I see nothing wrong with that, so long as it is balanced.

It is not balanced, for instance, if I know when they are present to be hunted for no effort.

That would be trivializing the cloaked player, and treating the hunters as if they were so handicapped as to be needing help beyond their own capabilities.
Give us the means to proactively seek them, not in reaction to being spoon fed intel the way it is now.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1704 - 2015-03-28 01:44:49 UTC
lel. im agreeing with half of your points and you're getting tetchy because you think im insulting you. you're a freaking genius.

Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


yeah. that's what im saying.

Quote:
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?


show me a killmail from null and ill show you players that were fully visible in local. Covert hunt it wont be.
(LolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLolLol)


Quote:
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.


yeah...remove local and cloakers will be exerting themselves and encouraging ppl to react to their presence whilst very much active. and they will be completely unable to project anything whilst afk.

even simpler than you thought huh?...

gg

Quote:
I've not claimed to be entitled to anything.

who the hell is talking about you? you jumped in on my reply to someone else!

Quote:
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.


I know. Again, you're getting all wishy washy at the wrong guy...

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
#1705 - 2015-03-28 04:58:47 UTC
I think there is some confusion about what is an admirable ideal, here.

The idea that any ship in space should be at risk, that is an ideal.
But, when you consider this is a game, and real people often have interruptions that need to be accommodated, that ideal proves to need conditional flexibility.

So, we have people able to log out.
Their ships vanish from play, assuming they have no timer holding them as a consequence from recent actions.
Players get a break, and they come back ready and willing to play more later.

Now, this clearly was not enough, because we also have other methods.

We have NPC Outposts, where ships can dock indefinitely, and players can store enormous amounts of ships and gear.
Players can remain online, in space, but so long as they are inside this outpost, they are immune from threat.
Due to downtime happening daily, they need to log back in if they desire to be able to access the docked environment.

That was a huge one, considering it is possible to play stock market, and profit from clever investments while technically avoiding risk from direct space combat. I know of players who made fortunes in EVE doing exactly this.

Still, we want more methods, something that is less detached from play, while still protecting that player.

So, we have the POS, with ships sitting behind shields.
No direct market access, although you can still buy and sell assets sitting in outposts elsewhere.
In addition, you can be in your ship, boosting for mining, or just scanning about safely.
Considering that the POS needs to be reinforced before it can be bypassed to threaten the ship, the player has effective perfect safety while online, although they need to log in just like in an outpost.

Again, more methods are needed, but this time gameplay dictates we want something with minimal benefits, which just lets players who had the forethought to fit properly, able to step outside of typical play demands.
Cloaking, allows regular ships to fundamentally handicap themselves, in exchange for being hidden beyond the ability to locate by normal means.

The typical environment where this is chosen, is done so almost exclusively because POS sitting or being docked is not available. This is a refuge of last resort, so players can walk away from the game with the intention of returning, and logging out is for whatever reason either ill advised or impractical.

It is not surprising, that such an option as cloaking is the go-to solution for areas where other players have blocked access to POS use and docking.
To be honest, the needs of gameplay would appear to define a need to conditionally protect players in hostile space, or else claiming space would result in areas devoid of content created by the PvP EVE is famous for.

This is where we are.

Cloaking is less a game play element, in many cases, than it is a method to simply step away from play, by design.
Suggesting that cloaking should be more risk associated, when it's purpose by necessity must duplicate the game exempting status defined by the above two methods, shifts balance away from where gameplay needs it.

The irrational fear of cloaked ships is the true issue. If there is a flaw in design promoting it, that must be addressed.
The one flaw which fits this description, and is repeatedly bemoaned, is hot dropping.

TL;DR: Cloaks do not need to be nerfed, the practice, and consequent fear, of hot dropping does.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1706 - 2015-03-28 06:52:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


I have 100% safety in stations and have the same effect on spineless bears. I guess we should also force people to undock too.
Madd Adda
#1707 - 2015-03-28 20:31:18 UTC
Not sure if this as been suggested, but I have an idea on how cloak can be changed without significantly doing anything to cloak/local. Why not have the *thud* sound indicating someone warped in/out play even while cloaked? the trail effects and exact location would be still masked, but the sound of someone warping in could be something that could help.

I realize that this doesn't affect the AFK part and if someone is camping an area you still wouldn't know, but this could be of use to see if someone is scouting the area in a cloaky.

Carebear extraordinaire

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1708 - 2015-03-28 22:20:52 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Not sure if this as been suggested, but I have an idea on how cloak can be changed without significantly doing anything to cloak/local. Why not have the *thud* sound indicating someone warped in/out play even while cloaked? the trail effects and exact location would be still masked, but the sound of someone warping in could be something that could help.

I realize that this doesn't affect the AFK part and if someone is camping an area you still wouldn't know, but this could be of use to see if someone is scouting the area in a cloaky.


vast majority of players play with no sound.

also, multi-boxing.

Other than those two points it wouldnt be a bad idea.

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

Madd Adda
#1709 - 2015-03-29 03:38:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Not sure if this as been suggested, but I have an idea on how cloak can be changed without significantly doing anything to cloak/local. Why not have the *thud* sound indicating someone warped in/out play even while cloaked? the trail effects and exact location would be still masked, but the sound of someone warping in could be something that could help.

I realize that this doesn't affect the AFK part and if someone is camping an area you still wouldn't know, but this could be of use to see if someone is scouting the area in a cloaky.


vast majority of players play with no sound.

also, multi-boxing.

Other than those two points it wouldnt be a bad idea.


why play with zero sound? if anything just turn sound effects (i'm not certain which governs the thud sound) on, but turn off the music. Simple and no issue.

i don't see how multi-boxing would incumber the idea. If you mean that multiboxers who play with no sound, then they could just have one or two accounts with sound effects on.

Edit: Either way it shouldn't be a problem, if you want to hear a cloaky entering the grid, you will have sound on. I can understand the problem if someone happens to be deaf.

Carebear extraordinaire

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1710 - 2015-03-29 05:47:18 UTC
Keeps comms clear.

If you are multiboxing, how do you know which client the cloaky warped in on?

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

Madd Adda
#1711 - 2015-03-29 06:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Keeps comms clear.

If you are multiboxing, how do you know which client the cloaky warped in on?


i think you misunderstand something. When you warp in and that sound plays, it doesn't tell other players who the pilot is warping in on, just that they are on grid. Sure you can approximate where they are, especially if they are close, but nothing warping in at a distance wouldn't fix.

The argument against this concerning multiboxers seems rather hollow considering they would just have to adapt, or they don't get the intel of a cloaky coming on grid. It's like someone not dscanning and getting blown up by a random ganker. The intel is there, just have to work it into your system.

Carebear extraordinaire

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1712 - 2015-03-29 11:39:05 UTC
Baaldor wrote:
Actually, really what it boils down to. Seriously, is that jewbears do not want the cloakers there because they claim it prevents them from jewing. [/quote[Except it doesn't, it simply moves their jewing and makes certain areas of space empty. Look at the stats of NPCs killed and tell me people don't jew in null with a straight face.

People should have to be active to empty out systems though, that's the entirety of the issue, even if you want to whine about the nullbears while enjoying your 100% safety while AFK.

Baaldor wrote:
And in reality, they just do no want anything to do with anyone else, they do not want to have anything to do with conflict. they do not want to fight All they want to do is have a single player game. Period. it has been the battle cry for this crap for the longest time.
Bull, that;s you projecting onto them. I happen to know a lot of null jews and they'd sure as **** hop into a PvP ship and go after you at the drop of a hat. Fact is that most people "hunting" in null want to creep around in cloaked ships, or nullified T3s, attacking only targets with no guns. You're as much of a carebear as any nullbear.

Baaldor wrote:
And I do have a warning for you, just like everything else the sheep asks for to minimize threat of conflict...it comes back and bites them right in the ass. Every time.
LOL, that works both ways mate. You want to cry about not being able to go AFK for 8 hours without risk, and if they keep that in it will bite you in the ass when they **** up the mechanics in a different way.

[quote=Baaldor]So, you know what, go for it, push for the nerf. And I can guarantee you the tactics will change and the term " hell camped" or "**** caged" will seem a much more enjoyable exercise.
As long as the players doing the camping have to actually play the game I couldn't care less.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1713 - 2015-03-29 11:49:49 UTC
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
AFK cloaking is the only current counter to the OP intel channel that is local. The mere fact that PvE bears claim that they "can't" do anything while there is a single non-friendly pilot in local is proof that local is a ridiculous intel tool. If ratters are already too afraid to undock when the cloaker may simply be afk, does anyone think they will undock when the cloaky must be active? Which brings us to what the bears really want, which is to improve their favorite intel channel to the point of eliminating pretty much all risk.
Lol? AFK cloakign isn;t a counter to anything. And local intel is not OP. Stop throwing around horseshit hoping it sticks. Basically you don't like local, so you'll say "Oh, this think we do which is dumb and broken is a counter for that other mechanic I don't like". In reality AFK cloaking has nothing to do with countering local, it's just a way for you risk averse PvPers to maintain 100% safety while affecting a system while you sleep.

Funny thing is you think you want local removed. If that happened you'd have noone to hunt and you'd be back here crying about how empty null is. There's already a place to go with no local, yet most of you people won;t go there most of the time cos it's empty.

baltec1 wrote:
I have 100% safety in stations and have the same effect on spineless bears. I guess we should also force people to undock too.
The key difference there is you can be observed. We can watch the undock or watch you in the station and the moment you undock we know about it. Cloakers don't have that, they can seemlessly move between active an inactive and you'll only know when they are on grid and attacking. Also, stations can be attacked, taken over and docking rights clone contracts revoked making it a one time undock.

Madd Adda wrote:
Not sure if this as been suggested, but I have an idea on how cloak can be changed without significantly doing anything to cloak/local. Why not have the *thud* sound indicating someone warped in/out play even while cloaked? the trail effects and exact location would be still masked, but the sound of someone warping in could be something that could help.
The idea put forward by CCP is already good. A mechanic to hunt down a cloaked player which is easily avoided if the cloaker is active. Active cloakers would be unaffected as they can simply move. People here are just crying about it because they want to keep their risk averse methods of PvP, or want PvE players to be punished if they do get it. It's the same overused crap by people who have the audacity to claim others are "entitled".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1714 - 2015-03-29 15:54:22 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Keeps comms clear.

If you are multiboxing, how do you know which client the cloaky warped in on?


i think you misunderstand something. When you warp in and that sound plays, it doesn't tell other players who the pilot is warping in on, just that they are on grid. Sure you can approximate where they are, especially if they are close, but nothing warping in at a distance wouldn't fix.

The argument against this concerning multiboxers seems rather hollow considering they would just have to adapt, or they don't get the intel of a cloaky coming on grid. It's like someone not dscanning and getting blown up by a random ganker. The intel is there, just have to work it into your system.


no. i think you are misunderstanding.

if i have three clients open, and i hear that sound, there is nothing to tell me which client is making the sound.

D-scan and your idea are apples and oranges. when i want to d-scan, i choose which client to do it on and i choose when to d-scan to learn whats around that char. Nothing liek this happens with your idea. im not actively listening, and im not choosing which client is listening at what point. When i hear the sound, there is nothing that tells me which client it came from and could have come from one of three different grids.

Why make an intel point around part of the game that is little used and is less than useful to a major part of the player base (players with sound turned off and multiboxing).

Lucas Kell wrote:
Lol? AFK cloakign isn;t a counter to anything. And local intel is not OP. Stop throwing around horseshit hoping it sticks. Basically you don't like local, so you'll say "Oh, this think we do which is dumb and broken is a counter for that other mechanic I don't like". In reality AFK cloaking has nothing to do with countering local, it's just a way for you risk averse PvPers to maintain 100% safety while affecting a system while you sleep.


No, afk cloaking was started to counter local.

When null bears started running away the second a neutral entered system, players started sitting in local 24/7 so that defenders couldnt be sure whether the neutral was active or not.

we dont log in and sit in systems because we fancied staying online whilst we went to work. We did it to make nullbears think it was unsafe when it was actually safe, and then safe when it was actually unsafe.


Lucas Kell wrote:

Funny thing is you think you want local removed. If that happened you'd have noone to hunt and you'd be back here crying about how empty null is. There's already a place to go with no local, yet most of you people won;t go there most of the time cos it's empty.


lol no i wouldnt be crying. id be setting up shop again. As would others.

The only ones who would be leave would be the ones who are looking for safe gameplay. Theres already a place with no afk cloakers, most of you people wont go there most of the time cos you cant make as much isk with as little risk.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1715 - 2015-03-29 18:12:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


baltec1 wrote:
I have 100% safety in stations and have the same effect on spineless bears. I guess we should also force people to undock too.
The key difference there is you can be observed. We can watch the undock or watch you in the station and the moment you undock we know about it. Cloakers don't have that, they can seemlessly move between active an inactive and you'll only know when they are on grid and attacking. Also, stations can be attacked, taken over and docking rights clone contracts revoked making it a one time undock..


So what is the difference between dedicating a a fleet to watching the undock and dedicating a fleet to guard a system?

Also stations cannot be attacked, taken over or have docking rights revoked.
Madd Adda
#1716 - 2015-03-29 18:59:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Daichi Yamato wrote:

no. i think you are misunderstanding.

if i have three clients open, and i hear that sound, there is nothing to tell me which client is making the sound.

D-scan and your idea are apples and oranges. when i want to d-scan, i choose which client to do it on and i choose when to d-scan to learn whats around that char. Nothing liek this happens with your idea. im not actively listening, and im not choosing which client is listening at what point. When i hear the sound, there is nothing that tells me which client it came from and could have come from one of three different grids.

Why make an intel point around part of the game that is little used and is less than useful to a major part of the player base (players with sound turned off and multiboxing).


" there is nothing to tell me which client is making the sound."
hence why having one client with sound would be preferred.


i will concede the dscan point but, if your clients are all on the same grid, it wouldn't matter which client was with sound on. Grant it you might not have all clients on the same grid but why should that make my idea bad?

"Why make an intel point around part of the game that is little used, and is less than useful to a major part of the player base "
Because any intel point can and will be used, even the impractical ones. You're trying to discredit it because you would either have to be active just to hear it (with sound on naturally)or have your clients all on the same grid (both of which are good practices imo). You'd prefer like is now, someone warps in cloaked and attacks an alt, of which you have no sound on . How do you know you're being attacked? Wouldn't it be better to at least have it in the off chance you to hear it and you warp off?

Anyway, if you don't know which client the sound came then you do the sensible thing and warp all clients to safety. If you don't agree with that then you deserve to be ganked.

Carebear extraordinaire

Mag's
Azn Empire
#1717 - 2015-03-29 19:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
In all the 11 years I've played, my sound in Eve has been off. Tried it a few times, only to turn it off again almost straight away.
The last time I used it after certain module effect changes, they drove me back to the off setting.

Granted things have improved with sound, but I still have it turned off. Habit I guess.

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

Madd Adda
#1718 - 2015-03-29 19:34:29 UTC
Mag's wrote:
In all the 11 years I've played, my sound in Eve has been off. Tried it a few times, only to turn it off again almost straight away.
The last time I used it after certain module effect changes, they drove me back to the off setting.

Granted things have improved with sound, but I still have it turned off. Habit I guess.


you make a point with the improved sound, i don't really mess with it other than the master sliders.

Carebear extraordinaire

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1719 - 2015-03-29 19:54:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
....As long as the players doing the camping have to actually play the game I couldn't care less.


This was the entirety of your posted reply to Baaldor.

The rest was quoting him.

I must admit, not specifying who is being referred to makes your views more fair.

So, we might want to make a thread to address the affected players.

Players camping in a POS, often AFK boosting for mining or other PvE.
Players camping docked in an outpost, often after ship spinning.
Players camping while logged out.
Players camping while cloaked, often meta gaming.

The only problem, is that we need each of these, or something with the ability to convey the same benefits.
The ability to meta game, or interrupt play without resetting progress, often defines the difference between success and failure.

If we could not build on previous efforts, our progress would never be more than could be achieved in a single session.
But we already know that.

The ability to sit docked in an outpost, or safely protected by a POS, is not being questioned here.
Logging out seems beyond reproach too.
I can certainly agree we need these as well.

The line is being neatly drawn at cloaking.

This deprives us, very often, from being able to build on previous progress in hostile territory.
And by progress, I include the expectation that a play session has expired.
Progress in this context centers around intel.
Gathering intel, and corrupting opposing intel.

Otherwise, our popular chat channel picks up activity monitor on top of standings reporting, and presence in system.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1720 - 2015-03-29 20:39:57 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
No, afk cloaking was started to counter local.
No, it was started as a way for small groups to affect larger null groups ratting with little to no investment. Local being used as a scapegoat didn't happen until long after AFK cloaking was being used, made up by people desperate for a reason why retaining 100% safety while AFK is a good idea. You're honestly insane if you believe that to be the actual truth.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
When null bears started running away the second a neutral entered system, players started sitting in local 24/7 so that defenders couldnt be sure whether the neutral was active or not.
Which makes no sense, since according to all the crying cloakers in here they still do run away from every neut.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
we dont log in and sit in systems because we fancied staying online whilst we went to work. We did it to make nullbears think it was unsafe when it was actually safe, and then safe when it was actually unsafe.
Exactly, you do it to counter PvE players with a stake in null, not to counter the fact that they can tell when local has a +1.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
lol no i wouldnt be crying. id be setting up shop again. As would others.

The only ones who would be leave would be the ones who are looking for safe gameplay. Theres already a place with no afk cloakers, most of you people wont go there most of the time cos you cant make as much isk with as little risk.
Setting up shop doing what? There would be noone to shoot, and setting up PvE would be literally the dumbest idea possible, since you would be able to get more reward with less risk elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with wanting safe gameplay, it's simple logic. Why would someone opt to be paid less for being at more risk?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.