Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Please train reading comprehension to level 1.

When I said that being extremely risk averse is what makes AFK cloaking successful/desireable I did not mean that it is good game play, but that from the standpoint of those who do AFK cloak the extreme response is part of why they do it. To deny people in game resources.

I have written explicitly I don't like AFK cloaking. I don't like AFK play in general. When I might appear AFK, I'm often at my keyboard just not looking at the Eve client every second. As a paying customer, that is my right, IMO. To be logged in and not look at the screen every second. In fact, it happend during a fleet fight last night. I'd periodically look at my other screen to respond to a buddy in game (in the same fleet) via jabber. Was that AFK? No.

Even if I am watching the screen every second nothing says I have to interact with the client. There may be no reason for me to do so.

Your position is incredibly untenable, IMO. It requires people watch their screen much more intently, even for some of the most boring game play. For example, is the auto-logoff timer going to kick in if I want to autopilot my freighter somewhere? If so, then f**k no. Doing that is really boring. If people want to go AFK while autopiloting a freighter and take the attendant risks, that is their right as paying customers.

If you are a miner, you still have to play the game to mine.

Just to make sure you get the whole point from me, but yes, afk mining is also as unfair as afk cloaking, so both types have to makes effort to do what they want to do.

So do you have more excuses to come with?

Sure, I have never denied this. I have never implied the opposite. In fact, if I did explicitly endorse this, it might be a violation here on the forums as it could be seen as supporting botting. But saying, "I don't have to look at my screen every second, or even for minutes at a time" is not the same as saying, "I support AFK play."



I have provided no excuses, but reasons why I think an AFK flag/auto log timer is not a good idea. I should not be required to do something in game so you can get a benefit even though my in game activities have virtually no impact on you. Such a requirement is nonsense.

You think it's a bad idea as it would destroy your free pass to kill someone without any risks of losing anything. It's pretty easy to see that.

The afk timer is extremely good as it lets you see if someone is afk or not. And can you also explain to me why it's so bad to be seen as afk when we can see everything else about a player in EVE?

Why should an afk player not be seen as afk when a player can be seen as everything else in EVE?

Lets turn this thing a little around. What if the peoples who use cloaking ships couldn't see if the other players in local was active?

How would it be if anyone who use a cloaking ship would get denied to see the status if a player was online or not and not see them in local before they would talk either?

Would that be fair?


To you it's a massive fail because it destroys your argument. You couldn't even counterargument what i said. You said it out loud and clear on what the intension are. So i gave you an answer on why it's bad.

Hah, just because you don't afk cloak, it doesn't change the facts on what i'm saying.

So nice try. Better luck next time.

Look, changing subject when someone is out of arguments. Niiiiiiiiiiiice.

I'll guess you are right, just because you say so, riiiiight?

I have made many valid arguments that you haven't even given answers back on. Yes you have given answers that takes the whole thing away from what i have been asking after. That's not giving answers on my questions.

And like i asked earlier in a question longer up: Lets turn this thing a little around. What if the peoples who use cloaking ships couldn't see if the other players in local was active?

How would it be if anyone who use a cloaking ship would get denied to see the status if a player was online or not and not see them in local before they would talk either?

Would that be fair?

I'll guess that would be aaaaaaaall fine and dandy to you, right?

Now, answer me this.

Thanks for the bump.

You have yet to demonstrate this so-called "unfair advantage", as being unfair, beyond your own opinion of it.

I could declare rail guns unfair too, and that would be my opinion.

You seem to be in denial regarding your options for play, instead insisting that play must occur as you describe it, and since your version has shortcomings when dealing with cloaks, the cloaks must be overpowered, etc.

You then suggest that the game adapt to you, rather than you adapting to it.

As others point out, balance exists and no change is needed.
But, since balance exists, if you want to take something, you also must give something in return.

Your arguments reject this, along with the idea that balance exists by so rejecting.