Player Features and Ideas Discussion

cloaks are part of the game and should not be removed from the game, but afk cloaky campers are the skum of eve. cloaking devices should be nerfed to using some type of fuel or as in sci fi a cloaking ship or structure has a flaw that can be discovered some how some way.

Thank you, good sir, for recognizing my efforts.

Feel free to take a look at my killboard. You'll notice that as someone who uses a cloak a lot, and goes AFK a lot, and doesn't care where he does so or who notices, that it is quite devoid of any of your mining barges or the mining barges of your fellow nullbear cohorts.

You will notice that I don't seem to lose disposable ships by lighting cynos, that I don't craftily gank your hauler alts as they putter around to the customs offices or refueling your POS's for your delicious moon goo, or anything of the sort.

My KB is actually, sadly, quite empty. This is an unfortunate consequence of me combining the AFK scheme with my incredibly cloaky tactical approach to Eve. I've learned after many long hours of experience with this method of gameplay that it's supremely difficult to actually cause anyone harm while doing this.

If you insist on burning away the night sitting in the POS because you believe local to be 100% reliable but can't even be bothered to check my profile though, feel free to let everyone know that you decided to hide from nothing because of something you didn't bother to confirm yet again on the forums, so that the ISD's can roll their eyes as they lock yet another AFK cloaker thread for redundancy.

Thank you for wasting your time when I couldn't be bothered to waste my time with you.

Yeah, this chap's response is good.

Whatever you propose regarding AFK campers, it will affect other, valid, gameplay as well. This subject has been argued to death and whilst I do agree with you that afk cloaked ships have the potential to cause problems it's only via force projection. The ships themselves are generally pretty useless, it's the threat of the cyno that's the problem.

The only suggestion I've read that seemed like a good idea on the subject is to stop cloaked ships having a cyno fitted with the exception of cov ops cloaked ships still being able to fit cov ops cynos. Even this, balancing as it is, would get a hefty opposition from the community that actively uses afk cloaky ships for the occasional hot drop cyno point which is a hefty chunk of nullsec.

Until some sort of unified approach that doesn't divide the community down the middle CCP aren't going to do anything as by doing nothing they risk nothing. By changing cloaking, it being a bone of contention and all, they risk losing account subs.

oh, and seriously, search. This has been discussed ad nauseam.

If they're afk they actually can't do anything at all so what does it matter if they're cloaked?

What's wrong with it? Does itmake it hard for you to gank them? HTFU!!

I find posters that repost redundant idea threads, extremely annoying. If they stopped breaking the rules and actually put some effort into seeing if their bad idea has been discussed to death first, then maybe other posters wouldn't need to point out the obvious.

Fer'isam is simply trying to point this out, with more detail and facts.

Yes, of course it does. They're cloaked up somewhere and you can't find them. Your post is redundant.



Throwing random insults around, especially about someone's sexuality, gives people a decent idea of what sort of person you are. Neither of your posts in this thread have added anything to it.

Might I suggest you have a good hard look at yourself and try to figure out why you're so negative? It could be as simple as having sand caught up in your genitals or perhaps some deep seated psychological issue about your parents? Whatever it is, there's no need to take it out on others, especially others who are making valid points.

Please try to post constructively for the benefit of everyone on the forum.

Thousand you mean?

Well, at least one a week for the six years I have been playing equates to 312 minimum.

Aehm guys, the OP hasn't replied since the first post, maybe its time to stop this, probably just a new forum alt to have a laugh.

Lets not give 'them' more incentive to see us dance.

And to stay on topic: No - for the various xxxx reasons mentioned in the xxxx linked threads (see above).