These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#5161 - 2016-01-07 07:46:50 UTC
I wonder what impact it would have on afk cloaker if we remove ability to see military/mining Index on system info window except for alliance who own sov and those people with blue standing?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5162 - 2016-01-07 09:06:49 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos
No. Everything does not. Afk cloaky camping fills downtime between activity with other alts on that subscription. 0 opportunity cost of managed well.


Wrong. Unless you have only one possible action, the next best action you did not take is your opportunity cost.

Your claim is that AFK cloaking is somehow paid for via PLEX. However, an account being used to AFK cloak cannot be used to generate the ISK necessary to buy a PLEX. Thus, the opportunity cost is the lost ISK due to AFK camping.

Contrary to popular assertion AFK camping is not costless. The cost is whatever else you could have done with that account., but did not due so that you could AFK cloak in a system.

Most Eve players understand the concept of opportunity cost...guess you are the exception that proves the rule.

Further, there is zero evidence that people who do use AFK cloaking are:

1. Veteran players.
2. Are space rich (I know plenty who are not).
3. Even if they are space rich that they PLEX their account(s).

As usual you just make stuff up as you go along picking a new bugbear and try and link it to AFK cloaking.

Tell me, is AFK cloaking somehow responsible for super-capital proliferation? Was AFK cloaking responsible for tracking titans? Boot carriers?

Wait, wait, wait...let me guess AFK cloaking was responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5163 - 2016-01-07 09:06:57 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
What about bits of space where one cannot anchor a citadel?



Still need an answer here....
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5164 - 2016-01-07 09:46:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
That pretty much sums it up. If a pilot has any other possible action, then he will log off the afk cloaky camper while he does that action with one of the two other alts on that account. So 0 opportunity cost.

Thus, no income is lost due to afk camping which by definition is an afk activity. You might argue that the player could have afk [something else] instead, but both mining and ratting require player input, so I would be at a loss to know what loss you might be thinking of.

In sum, if you have something better to do, then do that. Afk cloaky camping is for when, you know, you are afk.

The premise otherwise are easily verifiable. By those that might want to verify things as part of their decision making process.

Why you feel the need to mask why and how experienced players can leverage isk in game is frankly a bit beyond me. Its not exactly a well-kept secret.

Careful with the adhoms. I can live with any standard of debate. But will not live by a different standard than is otherwise accepted by the moderators.

Brokk
Do a forum search of OA. Its an echo-chamber concept with pretty much a single originating source. We like to call that originating source Tekos.

"When a vessel requests jump clearance, the source node transmits a basic carrier signal that includes data on the class of the vessel, its mass, its current status, and its CISC (CONCORD Identification Serial Code) to the destination nodes, which the confirms receipt of the data. This entire process is automated, consisting of direct communication between the mainframes of the paired star gate."

CISC. Heh, not far off my SIDS. There are some ancient gates, but the one in game are Concord run.

Null-sec removal would be lore driven. Universal removal mechanics driven.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5165 - 2016-01-07 10:41:06 UTC
Back to basics.

What mechanic are they using to interact with you, when they are AFK?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5166 - 2016-01-07 10:50:37 UTC
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.

People that want change use in fact same exact mechanics to point out how things could be different. Because they want change from the status quo.

Smart is the one who realize that its the same coin with different sides. Smarter who realize why either party wants things the way they want it. Arguing forth and back intentionally ignoring points the opposing sides favourable effects on the same mechanics is stupid.

If the vocal majority of this thread would be removed something useful could come out of this thread, till then its pointless posting in it. Sadly its a topic that needs looked into by CCP because clearly its a point of interest that does impact players negatively, game mechanic wise, or noone would post in this thread or prior to this thread have dozens of threads pop up about cloaking issues.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5167 - 2016-01-07 11:20:17 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered.

Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list).

A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses.

Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence.

Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place.

Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5168 - 2016-01-07 14:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Morrigan
Yah, and that is an established entitlement issue. Its not the right fix because is fixes afk cloaky camping without providing compensation.

Wander
Why do you reckon there needs to be a universal solution valid everywhere for one suggestion, but not for others? And why are you assuming that all or even any citadels need to be anchored?

Or why would it even matter if the module is ship or citadel based? Its just a mechanism that decloaks ships unless the cloaked ship pilot takes *any action* (it does not really matter what that trigger is) to maintain its cloak.

Its a bit less intrusive that a making cloak modules charge consuming. But ultimately is the same kind of thing: Interact with the game somehow to continue to do whatever you were doing.

But even simpler:

Ships with an active cloak must do *something* or the ship automatically logs after a certain period of time.

Hell, that last one even has social responsibility and global stewardship going for it. British electricity is coal based after all. Stop consuming wantonly.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5169 - 2016-01-07 15:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
No, it is not the right fix because you cannot put a structure in all areas of space.

I fail to see how that simple fact is a so called "entitlement issue".


And what does this have to do with anything?

Jerghul wrote:

Hell, that last one even has social responsibility and global stewardship going for it. British electricity is coal based after all. Stop consuming wantonly.



British electricity? I'm sorry, I fail to see the reference to cloaking. Perhaps you should practise what you preach and observe the rules?
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#5170 - 2016-01-07 15:20:48 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Morrigan
Yah, and that is an established entitlement issue. Its not the right fix because is fixes afk cloaky camping without providing compensation.

Wander
Why do you reckon there needs to be a universal solution valid everywhere for one suggestion, but not for others? And why are you assuming that all or even any citadels need to be anchored?

Or why would it even matter if the module is ship or citadel based? Its just a mechanism that decloaks ships unless the cloaked ship pilot takes *any action* (it does not really matter what that trigger is) to maintain its cloak.

Its a bit less intrusive that a making cloak modules charge consuming. But ultimately is the same kind of thing: Interact with the game somehow to continue to do whatever you were doing.

But even simpler:

Ships with an active cloak must do *something* or the ship automatically logs after a certain period of time.

Hell, that last one even has social responsibility and global stewardship going for it. British electricity is coal based after all. Stop consuming wantonly.


The details are the most important thing. Eve is a game of details and small differences. If you make a one-sided change without thinking of the repercussions, you will end up killing a style of gameplay without meaning to.

For examle:

Any idea that involes some kind of fuel for cloaks, will end up heavily breaking up wormhole scouting, since you cannot be certain to get a route into that particular system again.

Any idea that would make the decloaking "fix" to be a part of citadels themselves, would make this feature too strong and it would be abused to hell and back

Wormholer for life.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5171 - 2016-01-07 16:00:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Maria
Nice strawman presentation. Totally against forum rules, but hey, who cares about rules, right?

Wormholes to have specific mechanics that influence the impact of afk cloaky camping. Those could be imported to wormhole space, but it is better to address afk cloaky camping directly and specifically by addressing the afk component.

Yes, the level of exchange here has been way too low. Hence the importance of abiding by forum rules now.

An easy fix to afk cloaky camping is simply to disconnect inactive pilots with active cloaks after a certain time interval with no activity. Doing that has the advantage of both resolving the afk cloaky camping issue, and demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship (which are actually important things).

A DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a charge requirement for cloaks. So the modules need to be reactivated after being reloaded. Which requires a pilot to be active to keep his cloak operational.

A EVEN DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a mechanism that decloaks ships unless the pilot does *something/anything* to show activity and retain the cloak.

There is no need to provide compensation for changing an established multiple account entitlement. Which is all changing local amounts to. Unless you meant it should be changed in a logical manner (local info transferred to sov holders and available only to those blue to sov holders). That would be a pretty extreme advantage to give sov holders in a system.

The Developers understand the force in being/implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect afk cloaky camping represents. This point has been rehashed to death in this thread. I suggest you review earlier posts if you have missed that entire aspect.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5172 - 2016-01-07 16:14:29 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Maria
Nice strawman presentation. Totally against forum rules, but hey, who cares about rules, right?

Wormholes to have specific mechanics that influence the impact of afk cloaky camping. Those could be imported to wormhole space, but it is better to address afk cloaky camping directly and specifically by addressing the afk component.

Yes, the level of exchange here has been way too low. Hence the importance of abiding by forum rules now.

An easy fix to afk cloaky camping is simply to disconnect inactive pilots with active cloaks after a certain time interval with no activity. Doing that has the advantage of both resolving the afk cloaky camping issue, and demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship (which are actually important things).

A DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a charge requirement for cloaks. So the modules need to be reactivated after being reloaded. Which requires a pilot to be active to keep his cloak operational.

A EVEN DIFFERENT easy fix is to introduce a mechanism that decloaks ships unless the pilot does *something/anything* to show activity and retain the cloak.

The Developers understand the force in being/implicit threat/pretty big psychological effect afk cloaky camping represents. This point has been rehashed to death in this thread. I suggest you review earlier posts if you have missed that entire aspect.


Point one: Right back at'cha buddy. :)

Point two: Yah, wormholes do have a specific mechanic that directly influences the impact of AFK cloaking... The total lack of local.

Point three: Then please stop making off topic post like trying to connect British power to Cloaking. Because to be honest, that just silly and stupid.

Point Four: Lets not just stop there, lets make it so that it disconnects ALL inactive pilots, regardless of what they are doing. Doing otherwise would be frank, not balance and not fair. Anyways you forget that you can still simulate this whole ordeal by getting a super fast ship and make it fly in one direction so that it off grid by the time you scan it down and warp to it.

Point Five: which breaks Wormhole cloakers and breaks cloaking pilots that HAVE to travel LONG distances through null sec as their establish profession, for example blockade runners.

Point six: this is not easy at all, as introducing this mechanic will result in one of two things, it will either be far to strong and defenders will of course take advantage of this to be even more safe in their system, or it will be to weak and thus easily circumvented.

point Seven, the developers... Oh I'm sure they understand something, which might be why every thread before this one has been locked with very little done to the Cloaking device at all. For... How many years now? Based on a basic google search, these threads been popping up in 2012, 2011. And up to this point nothing has been done to change the balance up to this point. Though now CCP has been promising to make a OA, which will have an effect on all intel, which includes... guess what, local. That right, local is the first thing hit by the coming balance change. Which I'm sure with time cloaking will then be hit as well to put it in line with the new balance change when it comes.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5173 - 2016-01-07 16:39:49 UTC
Maria
Feel free to report any post of mine you find out of line.

Or the player controlled ability to close gates combined with no cyno availability. Which are actual features that limit the impact stemming from afk cloaky camping (local removal would seriously increase the impact) So, yah, you could give null-sec holders control of their gates and seriously changing the cyno inhibitor are alternative ways of bypassing afk cloaky camping. But it is better to address the issue directly by attacking the afk contribution to the problem.

Disconnecting afk cloaky campers is a valid option that would immediately resolve afk cloaky camping in addition to directly demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship. The argument is neither off-topic or silly. Do not underestimate the feel good factor of playing EvE. I like that part of its server mass is driven by volcanic activity and it is part of what brought me to the game in the first place (I came here by way of an engineering project looking at low delta T Stirling Engines. Yah, I am that kind of guy). Which in turn is one of the reasons I dislike afk cloaky camping. Computers and servers idling away on nothing much insults my sensibilities.

But no, lets just stop with disconnecting inactive pilots with active cloaks. Given that it is the topic of this thread.

A charge requirement is simply a balance issue relating to how much space a charge takes. In the case of nanite repair paste it is negligible, but could obviously be tweaked down even further if charge volume was a real concern. It does not break anything.

A mechanism that requires a pilot to be ATK to retain his cloak is neither too strong, or too weak. It simply requires that a player is ATK to retain the current status quo.

The echo chamber certainly resounds with the noise of no local. It seemly was inferred from fuzzy saying afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space and that there are good reasons for that.

As to resolving the issue in a timely manner. That would be about now. The ability to run concurrent clients is becoming widespread and of course multiplies what used to be a pretty marginal issue.







Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5174 - 2016-01-07 17:01:08 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos
That pretty much sums it up. If a pilot has any other possible action, then he will log off the afk cloaky camper while he does that action with one of the two other alts on that account. So 0 opportunity cost.

Thus, no income is lost due to afk camping which by definition is an afk activity. You might argue that the player could have afk [something else] instead, but both mining and ratting require player input, so I would be at a loss to know what loss you might be thinking of.


Still wrong...because there is no AFK camping during that time when the player is logged in with a money making character. If I am logged in for 4 hours to make ISK that is 4 hours I am not AFK camping. To suggest it is costless is just nonsense. If it were costless I'd be logged in and camping for those 4 hours.

You keep forgetting that such camping only works when you have an account logged in and doing it. Whether I am logged into another account or not.

"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
#5175 - 2016-01-07 17:03:56 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Except for the fact that I advocate for a change.....

Quote:
People that want change use in fact same exact mechanics to point out how things could be different. Because they want change from the status quo.

Smart is the one who realize that its the same coin with different sides. Smarter who realize why either party wants things the way they want it. Arguing forth and back intentionally ignoring points the opposing sides favourable effects on the same mechanics is stupid.


I don't even know what the Hell this means.

Quote:
If the vocal majority of this thread would be removed something useful could come out of this thread, till then its pointless posting in it. Sadly its a topic that needs looked into by CCP because clearly its a point of interest that does impact players negatively, game mechanic wise, or noone would post in this thread or prior to this thread have dozens of threads pop up about cloaking issues.


Not only do you want to do away with cloaks you want to censor those who disagree with you. Because our view points differ from yours.

"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
#5176 - 2016-01-07 17:14:23 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Its all opinion based.

People that prefer things to stay as they are argue relentlessly for the traditional mechanics staying rigid. Use every possible mechanic in defence to point out how everything is related.


Actually most people are saying that for cloaking to change - the mechanic which it most directly interferes with and is in fact the only counter to in many systems - local - also needs altered.

Many try and sweep this under the carpet as "off topic" when in fact the two share a symbiotic relationship. You cannot have an "afk cloaker" problem without local (and to a lesser extent, the watch list).

A further consideration is that in the drive to kill off "AFK" cloaking, there is a severe risk of breaking or greatly diminishing the other activities of cloaks. To date still no-one has found a way which can threaten a cloaky who is at the pub, without shattering other areas of space and other cloak uses.

Any balance debate has a responsibility for the direct knock on effects of a proposed change to be considered these are not off topic - this is simple diligence.

Tying this to a structure in response to finding cloaks alone is not actually valid - not everywhere can have structures. Now if one were to say this is ok because the areas where one cannot place a structure do not have this problem then you're effectively saying it's not actually a global problem. Which undermines the notion that it is even "broken" in the first place.

Finally, the level of "noise" a complaint gets doesn't make for a broken mechanic - see high sec ganking, bumping, war decs and so on and so forth.


Question though...where would one not be able to put a structure like the OA.

Or are you talking about how for some group of players the logistics of setting up and OA is problematic.

"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
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5177 - 2016-01-07 17:15:19 UTC
Teckos
You cannot prove afk cloaky camping has an opportunity cost by saying other things have an opportunity cost. The logic is invalid.

I will refer you to the "force in being"/"implicit threat"/"pretty big psychological effect" part of this thread that has been rehashed to death. The effect can of course be minimized in other ways (for example giving sov holder control of gates, or by dramatically improving function/cost of cyno inhibitors), but it remains best to attack the afk component of afk cloaky camping directly.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5178 - 2016-01-07 17:25:09 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Maria
Feel free to report any post of mine you find out of line.

Or the player controlled ability to close gates combined with no cyno availability. Which are actual features that limit the impact stemming from afk cloaky camping (local removal would seriously increase the impact) So, yah, you could give null-sec holders control of their gates and seriously changing the cyno inhibitor are alternative ways of bypassing afk cloaky camping. But it is better to address the issue directly by attacking the afk contribution to the problem.

Disconnecting afk cloaky campers is a valid option that would immediately resolve afk cloaky camping in addition to directly demonstrating social responsibility and global stewardship. The argument is neither off-topic or silly. Do not underestimate the feel good factor of playing EvE. I like that part of its server mass is driven by volcanic activity and it is part of what brought me to the game in the first place (I came here by way of an engineering project looking at low delta T Stirling Engines. Yah, I am that kind of guy). Which in turn is one of the reasons I dislike afk cloaky camping. Computers and servers idling away on nothing much insults my sensibilities.

But no, lets just stop with disconnecting inactive pilots with active cloaks. Given that it is the topic of this thread.

A charge requirement is simply a balance issue relating to how much space a charge takes. In the case of nanite repair paste it is negligible, but could obviously be tweaked down even further if charge volume was a real concern. It does not break anything.

A mechanism that requires a pilot to be ATK to retain his cloak is neither too strong, or too weak. It simply requires that a player is ATK to retain the current status quo.

The echo chamber certainly resounds with the noise of no local. It seemly was inferred from fuzzy saying afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space and that there are good reasons for that.

As to resolving the issue in a timely manner. That would be about now. The ability to run concurrent clients is becoming widespread and of course multiplies what used to be a pretty marginal issue.


point one: When someone closes a wormhole, there is always the chance that it will spawn somewhere else, and in a even worse location. "AKA a null sec alliance suddenly comes pouring through the find out what on the other side, and if there anyone to kill or steal from." So not even wormhole goers can keep the "gates" closed for ever. As for cyno, that would be a problem of force projection, not afk cloaker, cause I have yet to see a single afker actually light a cyno.

point two: Dude you are in a sci-fi game about a dystopia, not only that, but CCP supported the development of a song called HTFU, which is of course harden the (Bad word here because of censors) up. I'm sure that social responsibility and global stewardship, or the "Give me what I want or you are a bad man" topic is pretty low on their in game list of things to get to. Also if you are going to throw the whole disconnect afk cloaking card in, I will throw in the. "You must make it target ALL afk players, not just afk cloakers, otherwise it would be unbalance."

point three: Placing charge requirements break active game play. You don't seem to understand this, but making it so that cloaking requires active charges to magically be used WILL break MANY active cloak professions. Please stop with this non-sense.

Quote:

A mechanism that requires a pilot to be ATK to retain his cloak is neither too strong, or too weak. It simply requires that a player is ATK to retain the current status quo.

The echo chamber certainly resounds with the noise of no local. It seemly was inferred from fuzzy saying afk cloaky camping is not an issue in wormhole space and that there are good reasons for that.

As to resolving the issue in a timely manner. That would be about now. The ability to run concurrent clients is becoming widespread and of course multiplies what used to be a pretty marginal issue.


How do I even respond to this? It straight up non-sense. Also as for what Fuzzy is saying. We all understand what Fuzzy is saying, I just question if you understand what fuzzy is saying, that or are you trying to warp what people say to fit your goal? You have a tendency to do that, I mean fail to understand how something works, and warping what people say to fit your argument.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#5179 - 2016-01-07 17:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Post and those quoting them were removed for the above reason. Please note saying a post violates a rule doesn't necessarily mean it does. CCL has been invested by CCP with the authority to deiced what is and isn't against the forum rules, with appropriate checks and balances on that authority. A post that says nothing but you broke the rules and or reported will be removed . There are some borderline post that were permitted to stay pending further review.

I will keep the lock on this thread for 24 hours to give everyone time to cool off and check out some of the other awesome threads in this forum.

As always, if you think something was removed in error. Please file a ticket.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5180 - 2016-01-08 18:08:15 UTC
Maria
Always a chance that...

Indeed. Just as I imagine that there might always be a chance that hostile pilots might entosis open a player controlled gate in null-sec. The horror.

But yes. Both represent implicit threats. Weak implicit threats. But implicit threats all the same.

HTFU is a sentiment I am a firm believer of. I think the wording choice in "afk cloaky camping is established multiple account entitlement" indicates what group of players I think need hardening up some.

This is a big point. There is a selection bias in who CCP gets feedback from that seriously promotes the interests of established players. That is ok in one sense, but on the other hand, someone has to voice concern on behalf of the silent majority (as a great speech writer for Ronald Reagan coined it). In null-sec, afk cloaky camping impacts disproportionately on newer players that rely on ratting and mining income to fund their peak time pvp activity (in null sec isk is a means to an end). Older players have more sophisticated access to isk generation that is not heavily impacted by afk cloaky camping. This is of course a generalization.

I am quite sure I did mention that auditing in space afk activity in general is reasonable to link to targeting the afk component of afk cloaky camping.

Marginal charge carrying criteria does not break anything. Nor is it magical. There are quite a number of modules that use charges. Mike mentioned that "break" should be examined critically, and I tend to agree. It is often used a bit hyperbolically and in a manner that seems incompatible with HTFU principles.

Fozie is saying there are good reasons for why unquantifiable threats do not have a big psychological effect in wormhole space. I have listed some of them earlier and could happily do so again. Note that removing local creates an unquantifiable threat, it does not diminish it. So naturally, the compensating mechanisms are pretty powerful.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1