EVE General Discussion

i once sat cloaked, and at my computer, for 20 hours to catch a rorqual that had logged out at a moon. i would never have killed htat rorqual without a cloking device, thank you ccp

Heya Phantom, I don't suppose you'd be willing to give CCP's perspective on things, would you? It could go a long way to reducing some of the more ridiculous ideas being vomited out...

There is no solution because there is no problem. Stop treating this as a certain problem a certain country had with a certain peoples back in the 1940's.

I doubt they will, as it would be quoted to hell and back as the end-all-argument-point. But I've been wrong before.

Keeping this discussion going for as long as possible gives them good feedback on what we as the playerbase currently feel about it.

LOL, well thanks for allowing us to read no further in your post as you've just proved your IQ must be in the single figures! Seriously who did I threaten exactly? If you can't see that I was using this as an example, well I fear that there isn't much anyone can do to help you short of a brain implant.

Oh and in most countries in the world, pointing a gun at someone is 'Threatening behaviour' not assault. Shooting them is assault/GBH/Attempted Murder/Manslaughter/Murder depending on the damage done and provable intent.



Then there isn't a problem.... hes putting in the effort. If you had bothered to actually read the thread you would realise this has been said all along.



Well, make the loot from sanctums e.t.c. as good as from WHs then there would be a problem since risk vs reward would again be balanced. The problem is it currently ISN'T balanced... again did you bother to read the thread?



You clearly have no idea how to fit a SB for cyno/tackle do you. Also, you have approx 3-4 seconds MAX to kill it before **** is landing on top of you, thats 1-2 volleys, at 22km distance, with a decent transversal.......

Not going to happen unless the SB is a ******. Also I'm not in PL so I don't feel the need to bot and/or cheat like you guys. And no that isn't an unfounded accusation, Nmeh was regularly using the 'don't appear in local exploit' before it was fixed against us.

"And yes actually, its called intel channels, one poor guy might get took but then it should be all over your intel channels that a hostile hot drop gang is in the area. At that point you would be organizing the trap to take them out of your space.

But you won't do that, it requires that you not be running a bot."

Still not botting, still never botted and still don't run anomalies myself. As I mentioned previously (If you bothered to read the thread AGAIN) I make my ISK other ways. AFK cloakies don't affect me at all.

Also, a smart team will HD ONE target and then move on. If you try that they you will just waste hours of your fleets time, normally for max 1 SB/recon kill. Not worth it.

Finally, not everyone is in a massive alliance. Null-sec is liveable for smaller alliances/corps as well (as stated by CCP), who don't have this option given the massive number of normal jumps that capitals can often cover in a matter of seconds. Also again (had you bothered to read the thread) this involves the defenders putting in massively more effort than the attackers, again unbalanced.

"That takes effort, and in the end it paid off with a dead nyx. I'm already sitting still for 6 hours, I don't feel like moving, the target I needed to watch was a tower, I shouldn't have to warp off and back because you want to bot in freedom."

And what gives you the right to be able to sit there motionless for hours in hostile space? Would it have been sooo bad to have to make a 2nd bookmark and warp between the two occasionally?

"The thing you are complaining about has been named a Valid Tactic by CCP themselves, at many a Fanfest over the years, its called Resource Denial."

Again, try reading the thread. No-one was complaing about resource denial. The problem is about AFK players been able to deny resources to active players. It should take active play to counter active play, otherwise the effort levels required are so far out of wack that something is seriously messed up!.

"Can you prove 100% that the person in your local is AFK?

Until you can prove it, then you are making this all up in your head, and there is no way for you to prove they are AFK.

That is an argument against it."

No its the other way round..... Unless you can prove they are afk, you have to assume they aren't.
When you see 30 ships sitting on a gate camping it, you don't assume they are all afk do you? No you assume they are all active and ready to kill you. Same with cloakers.

"if someone is parked in a ratting system I just find a different system to rat in until they leave."

Lovely for the big alliances, now what about smaller alliances without that option? Or do you think the game should be solely based around you? How many SBs would it take to put one in EVERY test system. Think about that next time you are fighting DRF for example.

"yet you never see TEST whining about afk cloakers "

Errrr, yes we did, quite a few times when I was in Northen Co. More than almost any other alliance actually.

"Virtually all of the afk cloaker whine seems to come from lolrenters."

Probably cos they don't have 30+ systems to choose from to rat in?

"Jesus, these people would never make it in a wormhole."

Lived in WHs for a few months thanks. Its more risky but more profitable so all is good.



As a final point -

I agree that Local is FAR too powerful a Intel tool, however until a proper scanner system can be implemented (without causing loads of lag) its here to stay. This isn't about Local.

For about as many months and years that AFK cloaking hasn't been a problem… so, roughly all of them.

Please do tell, how they do this whilst AFK.No one with any idea of balance, is asking for local to be removed without a package of changes to take it's place, but as it stands local gives you intel on a plate. AFKing simply tries to subvert it's instant intel.

You say this isn't about local, but please tell me... What are they using to interact with you whilst AFK? What is it they are using, to make this a feasible method of psychological warfare? The fact you don't even need a cloak for this to work, should tell you where the issue is.

This post i agree with.



So those would have no problem with cloaking detection mechanics, however hard and troublesome they might be, with or without local? If so i apologize to those, because you stand in the same position as i do.

If I point a gun at your head, then tell you not to do something or I'll shoot you, then you aren't going to do it are you?
Its the same thing. A cloaker in local is effectively pointing a cyno at anyone in system.

Now, if I should step behind a wall and poke the barrel through a piece of fabric covering a whole in the wall (making it clear I can still see you as a cloaker can also via local/d-scan), are you going to risk doing it? After all, theres no proof I'm am still holding the gun at all. I could of gone to sleep for all you know. The point is you DON'T know. However would you take the risk? I'm willing to bet the answer is no in all but extremely rare circumstances (or incredibly stupid people)

Its about POTENTIAL damage, particually if you are trying to make ISK. Losing a ship sets that back a long way and puts Null so far behind L4s or Incursions or WHs that its pointless to be in Null at all.

These concerns, as unfounded as they are, are exactly what my proposal would alleviate without negatively affecting wormholes.

You're throwing ideas out there without taking into account the game as a whole. You're only trying to change a little thing you see as a problem with no concerns for the ripple effects such a change would have. You're trying to turn null, and as a side effect wormholes, into warm, cuddly safe playgrounds and forgetting that these systems are meant to be inherently dangerous.