Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
#9021 - 2017-03-16 18:40:23 UTC
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.
Minmatar Republic
#9022 - 2017-03-16 20:02:53 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.


How is it a fallacy to suggest that maybe you should spend some time learning a game mechanic before suggesting ideas that outright destroy said game mechanic?

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."

#9023 - 2017-03-16 20:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Going to ignore your other bleating about "OMG GOING AFK IS BAD" and just highlight your complete lack of understanding of game mechanics here:

Mike Voidstar wrote:
For instance if the cloaked is actively hunting, scouting a ship to attack and the scanner picks the Sig closest to himself to scan to ensure he isn't on the menu, that's both sides making judgement calls that influence the outcome, not pure random chance.


This is never going to happen. You seem to be under the impression that the hunting ship gets closer and closer, actively chasing a target before finally getting on-grid with them. That's not how it works, at all. The hunting ship is going to either be sitting at a safespot multiple AU away using d-scan on a 5* cone to identify where their target is, or on-grid and moving in for the kill. In the first case they probably aren't the nearest signature, and you have to scan everything in the 14 AU bubble to make sure it isn't a threat (and an AFK cloaked ship in that 14 AU bubble will look just like an active hunter). In the second case the cloaked ship is on-grid and made visible by your ridiculous second half of your proposal, and the signatures are irrelevant (but the cloaked ship has failed, because you just warped out). But even if you dump the on-grid half of your proposal a cloaked ship on-grid with a target is moving in for the kill and about to engage, if you're screwing around with scan probes that's way too little too late.
#9024 - 2017-03-16 21:35:37 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
This isn't a discussion about local. Never has been. It's a discussion about cloaks. There are other ways of bypassing local, but they all take more effort than fitting a single trivial module and going afk for a few days. You don't like it, I get it... but that's not really the issue under discussion.


This tells me you're either a die hard null PvE-er, or don't understand the game. You can't talk about AFK cloaking in null without talking about local. Period.
Goonswarm Federation
#9025 - 2017-03-17 04:49:40 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.


No fallacy Mike, your statements lead me to believer you are an ignoramus when it comes to using cloaks for PvP. Specifically for hunting down ships and killing them. For example, all ships fitting a cloak...cloaks come with a significant targeting delay. This delay comes through the scan res penalty for non-covert ops cloaks. For example, a VNI without a cloak will lock another cruiser in 3.6 seconds (using All 5s). With an improved cloaking device II the lock time goes to 6.1 seconds. That is a 69.4% increase in lock time. In short your claim that all or even most WH ships fit cloaks is ridiculously ignorant. A prototype cloaking device is even worse in that is more than doubles the locking time.

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Seriously go load up Pyfa and check this for yourself. 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

#9026 - 2017-03-17 05:25:50 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Going to ignore your other bleating about "OMG GOING AFK IS BAD" and just highlight your complete lack of understanding of game mechanics here:

Mike Voidstar wrote:
For instance if the cloaked is actively hunting, scouting a ship to attack and the scanner picks the Sig closest to himself to scan to ensure he isn't on the menu, that's both sides making judgement calls that influence the outcome, not pure random chance.


This is never going to happen. You seem to be under the impression that the hunting ship gets closer and closer, actively chasing a target before finally getting on-grid with them. That's not how it works, at all. The hunting ship is going to either be sitting at a safespot multiple AU away using d-scan on a 5* cone to identify where their target is, or on-grid and moving in for the kill. In the first case they probably aren't the nearest signature, and you have to scan everything in the 14 AU bubble to make sure it isn't a threat (and an AFK cloaked ship in that 14 AU bubble will look just like an active hunter). In the second case the cloaked ship is on-grid and made visible by your ridiculous second half of your proposal, and the signatures are irrelevant (but the cloaked ship has failed, because you just warped out). But even if you dump the on-grid half of your proposal a cloaked ship on-grid with a target is moving in for the kill and about to engage, if you're screwing around with scan probes that's way too little too late.




For that specific circumstance, sure. Unless of course you are scanning as he is positioning himself. Or he is scouting and waiting for friends to form up at their staging area for the hotdrop. Or scouting activity at some point of interest.

There are more uses of cloaks than just camping in null, and all of the gameplay surrounding it now is completely borked by the current binary, counterless mechanic.
#9027 - 2017-03-17 05:32:43 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
This isn't a discussion about local. Never has been. It's a discussion about cloaks. There are other ways of bypassing local, but they all take more effort than fitting a single trivial module and going afk for a few days. You don't like it, I get it... but that's not really the issue under discussion.


This tells me you're either a die hard null PvE-er, or don't understand the game. You can't talk about AFK cloaking in null without talking about local. Period.



I am talking about cloaking.

Afk camps hiding under cloaks are a symptom, not the problem.

Regardless, you can easily talk about it without dragging in local as a distraction, especially if you have any interest in having a discussion at all. Local is it's own discussion, balanced by its own neutrality, other than those few seconds of load time. It's not equivalent to cloaks in any way, one being a universal game condition everywhere but wormholes, the other being a fairly cheap and trivial module.

But by all means, make a thread and discuss local.
#9028 - 2017-03-17 05:39:31 UTC
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.


How is it a fallacy to suggest that maybe you should spend some time learning a game mechanic before suggesting ideas that outright destroy said game mechanic?


The fallacy is in simply attacking me, rather than supporting your own position. It would seem you have difficulty doing that however. It actually makes me wonder if your account has been sold, you used to be much better, and did actually get me to concede several points in the past. That or your superiors came down on you for actually discussing something instead of just repeating the party line endlessly regardless of how irrelevant those points were.

As it happens, I do know how a cloak affects a ship. Oddly the module remains quite popular, despite the drawbacks, even on ships with tight fittings where the cpu cost becomes important. Weird. Kinda like the way microwarp drives remain popular despite their drawbacks. It's almost like it does something really important. Imagine that....
Goonswarm Federation
#9029 - 2017-03-17 05:40:32 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
This isn't a discussion about local. Never has been. It's a discussion about cloaks. There are other ways of bypassing local, but they all take more effort than fitting a single trivial module and going afk for a few days. You don't like it, I get it... but that's not really the issue under discussion.


This tells me you're either a die hard null PvE-er, or don't understand the game. You can't talk about AFK cloaking in null without talking about local. Period.



I am talking about cloaking.

Afk camps hiding under cloaks are a symptom, not the problem.


Yes of local. No local and AFK camping serves no purpose at all. Nobody will be AFK camping. They might be AFK, but only because they needed to be (bio, phone, etc.).

Quote:
Regardless, you can easily talk about it without dragging in local as a distraction, especially if you have any interest in having a discussion at all. Local is it's own discussion, balanced by its own neutrality, other than those few seconds of load time. It's not equivalent to cloaks in any way, one being a universal game condition everywhere but wormholes, the other being a fairly cheap and trivial module.


No local, no AFK camping. Without local how do you know somebody is in system with you while they are cloaked? You won't. Whatever effect one was trying to have with a cloak and being AFK

Quote:
But by all means, make a thread and discuss local.


No, AFK cloaking only works because of local. Local and cloaks are inextricably linked. Local also tells you an ATK cloaker is in system too.

No dice Mike you tried this Bravo Sierra before and it failed. You just keep making yourself look foolish.

"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

Minmatar Republic
#9030 - 2017-03-17 05:44:55 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
This isn't a discussion about local. Never has been. It's a discussion about cloaks. There are other ways of bypassing local, but they all take more effort than fitting a single trivial module and going afk for a few days. You don't like it, I get it... but that's not really the issue under discussion.


This tells me you're either a die hard null PvE-er, or don't understand the game. You can't talk about AFK cloaking in null without talking about local. Period.



I am talking about cloaking.

Afk camps hiding under cloaks are a symptom, not the problem.

Regardless, you can easily talk about it without dragging in local as a distraction, especially if you have any interest in having a discussion at all. Local is it's own discussion, balanced by its own neutrality, other than those few seconds of load time. It's not equivalent to cloaks in any way, one being a universal game condition everywhere but wormholes, the other being a fairly cheap and trivial module.

But by all means, make a thread and discuss local.



What the interface an afk cloaker is using to interact with you?

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."

#9031 - 2017-03-17 07:06:02 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Cloaking modules should have an active counter that requires time and precision to work. I don't care much about people being forced out of their ratting schedules (it's not hard to rat elsewhere), but if someone wants to hide inside someone else's space indifinitely and provide intel, that person has to put actual effort into avoiding being detected and killed. He can stay cloaked as long as he wants, but at least periodic warping should be required.


What is the active counter to local?


Works both ways, mate. People can see the invader, but he can also see all people in system in return.

Edit: You know what? Sure, give null delayed local like w space, but keep the capsuleer counter.


Actually no, it provides an advantage to the player already in system. It also always works. It tells the player wanting to rat or mine or do anything in space that there is danger. There is no way around it at all.

Now with AFK cloaking there are ways to deal with. Not direct ways, but ways that will mitigate the impact/effect of AFK cloaking. Not everything needs an active counter.


Never said there was a way around it, but players know there is a nuet in system just as much as the nuet can provide intel to his mates about what is in system. Works both ways. What's more, players in system will never know what's going to drop until it drops, so hotdrop fleets have the advantage there.

If you take into consideration safe log off, cloaked ships are completely safe and without counter, unless the player fucks up, and there is no way to actively put pressure into them. I strongly believe there should be ways to hunt down cloaked ships, ways that take more effort than what it takes for the latter to stay safe, but that at least deny them complete safety.

Also, let me remind you that I'm not advocating against the effects AFK cloakers have on ratters, what I want is an option for players to force (not bait) cloakers into PvP. This game is all about non-consensual PvP, after all.

Edit: How I see it, AFK cloakers want to have their cake and eat it too. We can't continue having that in EVE.


Not empty posting, Mr. Teckos here ignored this discussion. I'll assume he just forgot about it.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Goonswarm Federation
#9032 - 2017-03-17 07:17:49 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:


Not empty posting, Mr. Teckos here ignored this discussion. I'll assume he just forgot about it.


Nope, saw it. Just thought it was a load of bollocks. There are ways to continue ratting, mining, etc. with and AFK cloaker in system. If you don't use them that is not my problem nor CCP's problem. And you want to bring to pressure on a player who cannot lock you, cannot do anything too you, and if AFK can't do anything even if he wanted to....yeah...not seeing the balance thingy.

"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

#9033 - 2017-03-17 11:16:21 UTC
Anything changed after 400p.?

Or the gangers/ and afk cloakers still speaking about:

- delete local - that will fix afk cloakers?

just wonder;
Minmatar Republic
#9034 - 2017-03-17 14:42:00 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.


How is it a fallacy to suggest that maybe you should spend some time learning a game mechanic before suggesting ideas that outright destroy said game mechanic?


The fallacy is in simply attacking me, rather than supporting your own position. It would seem you have difficulty doing that however. It actually makes me wonder if your account has been sold, you used to be much better, and did actually get me to concede several points in the past. That or your superiors came down on you for actually discussing something instead of just repeating the party line endlessly regardless of how irrelevant those points were.

As it happens, I do know how a cloak affects a ship. Oddly the module remains quite popular, despite the drawbacks, even on ships with tight fittings where the cpu cost becomes important. Weird. Kinda like the way microwarp drives remain popular despite their drawbacks. It's almost like it does something really important. Imagine that....



But, majority of your suggestions only provide a one way power trip, they all are attempting to make nullsec far safer then what it should be, and the reverse should be happening, it should be far more dangerous. AFK cloaking came about due to the earily warning system that all defenders have.

Because of this early warning system an defender can maximize their isk making activities until a hostile shows up, which then results in everyone switching into "Bunker mode" In which case everyone docks up, and turns out the lights in hopes that they person or group will move on.

The extreme imbalance we are suffering from now, is that the likelyness of catching a ratter, or a miner unaware is almost null. Thus people have figured out a way to make the early warning system work for them, thus we have afk cloaking - a way to make an infallible intel system lie.


You keep saying AFK cloaking is a symptom and not a problem mike, an you are right for the wrong reasons. The reason why it a symptom is because of a extremely powerful tool that requires very little skill or effort to pay attention to as it will ALWAYS give you the correct information...... Then you run into a problem of larger alliances where they do put in a little bit of effort into this intel tool and create giant networks that will report you long LONG before you even get near your target system.

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."

#9035 - 2017-03-17 16:38:22 UTC
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Maria Dragoon wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well, you switched up your fallacy in any case. Good job.


How is it a fallacy to suggest that maybe you should spend some time learning a game mechanic before suggesting ideas that outright destroy said game mechanic?


The fallacy is in simply attacking me, rather than supporting your own position. It would seem you have difficulty doing that however. It actually makes me wonder if your account has been sold, you used to be much better, and did actually get me to concede several points in the past. That or your superiors came down on you for actually discussing something instead of just repeating the party line endlessly regardless of how irrelevant those points were.

As it happens, I do know how a cloak affects a ship. Oddly the module remains quite popular, despite the drawbacks, even on ships with tight fittings where the cpu cost becomes important. Weird. Kinda like the way microwarp drives remain popular despite their drawbacks. It's almost like it does something really important. Imagine that....



But, majority of your suggestions only provide a one way power trip, they all are attempting to make nullsec far safer then what it should be, and the reverse should be happening, it should be far more dangerous. AFK cloaking came about due to the earily warning system that all defenders have.

Because of this early warning system an defender can maximize their isk making activities until a hostile shows up, which then results in everyone switching into "Bunker mode" In which case everyone docks up, and turns out the lights in hopes that they person or group will move on.

The extreme imbalance we are suffering from now, is that the likelyness of catching a ratter, or a miner unaware is almost null. Thus people have figured out a way to make the early warning system work for them, thus we have afk cloaking - a way to make an infallible intel system lie.


You keep saying AFK cloaking is a symptom and not a problem mike, an you are right for the wrong reasons. The reason why it a symptom is because of a extremely powerful tool that requires very little skill or effort to pay attention to as it will ALWAYS give you the correct information...... Then you run into a problem of larger alliances where they do put in a little bit of effort into this intel tool and create giant networks that will report you long LONG before you even get near your target system.


I understand your issue, but it's built around a couple of assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

First, you seem to believe that there is a solid Need to directly engage ratters and miners. Certainly I understand the desire. I also understand the boon to the economy that ship destruction provides. I even understand the need to disrupt industry and ratting as both a conflict driver and as a check on the economy.

That Need does not exist however. It is simply a desire. The economy benefits no matter who explodes. Mining and Ratting are disrupted, the economy is checked and conflict driven, simply by having hostiles in striking distance. The actual 'physical' security of those particular assets is immaterial. If you can force them to retreat to a dock then the Needs of the game have been met.

Second, you are essentially assuming that those who put in effort into securing those softer assets have no right to benefit from those efforts. I don't mean the right to rat and mine without disturbance, I mean the basic right to attempt to confront potential hostiles. The issue is that there is no way to even try to confront the cloaked ship, not that the cloaked ship is succeeding in evading, in exactly the same way the cloaked ship has no right to confront the soft targets it wants, just the chance to try.

Even Teckos's oft repeated claim that the opportunity cost of putting an alt in a cloak to camp balances the equation fails at that point, because dealing with the threat also comes at a cost, and would still come at a cost if the opportunity to actually pursue a confrontation with the cloaked ship existed. The cloaking mechanic itself is bad so long as it remains as is, regardless of what you do to local. The two issues are not connected, they are simply adjacent.

Sure, with the right effort Local becomes a powerful tool. But it does require effort and dedication to get there, maintain it, and use it. Even if you accept cloaking as needed to counteract it (I don't, though if things were balanced it would be worth discussing), the 100% unbreakable, effortless nature of the cloaking mechanic as it stands is far too powerful for that purpose. It should require a similar expenditure of effort and dedication as those who are maintaining and using local to break it. That's partially true, when you consider the real danger is the hotdrop, but you should still need to actively participate in keeping yourself hidden just as anyone in the solar system has to actively participate in keeping a watch for hostiles.

My suggestions are all mostly one way because the current situation is almost entirely in favor of the other way. If it's a scale of 1(Coaked Hunter) to 10(Intended Target), and we are stuck at 1, any movement at all is toward 10. Ideally we should be at a 5, but we aren't anywhere near that.
#9036 - 2017-03-17 17:06:25 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:


Not empty posting, Mr. Teckos here ignored this discussion. I'll assume he just forgot about it.


Nope, saw it. Just thought it was a load of bollocks. There are ways to continue ratting, mining, etc. with and AFK cloaker in system. If you don't use them that is not my problem nor CCP's problem. And you want to bring to pressure on a player who cannot lock you, cannot do anything too you, and if AFK can't do anything even if he wanted to....yeah...not seeing the balance thingy.


Good for ratters, miners etc. I guess. I am not talking about AFK cloakers here, but cloaking in general and how it is a perfect intel gathering tool; anyways, you can't seem to have a civil discussion, for some reason, and always retort to ad hominems, strawmans and other fallacies. I'll withhold judgement on your capacity for debate, but you have yet to address my arguments directly, and as I seriously doubt you won't, I'll leave it as is. No point in having a conversation with someone who doesn't want to.

It's better you don't reply to this comment; it is very likely you will do so in your usual manner, in which case I will ignore you until you can provide a sufficient argument.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

#9037 - 2017-03-17 17:33:55 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I am talking about cloaking.

Afk camps hiding under cloaks are a symptom, not the problem.

Regardless, you can easily talk about it without dragging in local as a distraction, especially if you have any interest in having a discussion at all. Local is it's own discussion, balanced by its own neutrality, other than those few seconds of load time. It's not equivalent to cloaks in any way, one being a universal game condition everywhere but wormholes, the other being a fairly cheap and trivial module.

But by all means, make a thread and discuss local.


We have a thread about local. This one. Tell me how you would be upset about an AFK cloaker with no local chat. I'm patient, I can wait for you to explain that to me.

You're right though, one of these things is a fairly cheap thing. Being able to see what hostiles are in your home system with zero effort, and being able to get away literally 100% of the time without even needing a module is an unbelievably cheap way to play a game. Let's get rid of that cheap playstyle. No more local, this debate is solved. /thread.
#9038 - 2017-03-17 19:50:35 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I am talking about cloaking.

Afk camps hiding under cloaks are a symptom, not the problem.

Regardless, you can easily talk about it without dragging in local as a distraction, especially if you have any interest in having a discussion at all. Local is it's own discussion, balanced by its own neutrality, other than those few seconds of load time. It's not equivalent to cloaks in any way, one being a universal game condition everywhere but wormholes, the other being a fairly cheap and trivial module.

But by all means, make a thread and discuss local.


We have a thread about local. This one. Tell me how you would be upset about an AFK cloaker with no local chat. I'm patient, I can wait for you to explain that to me.

You're right though, one of these things is a fairly cheap thing. Being able to see what hostiles are in your home system with zero effort, and being able to get away literally 100% of the time without even needing a module is an unbelievably cheap way to play a game. Let's get rid of that cheap playstyle. No more local, this debate is solved. /thread.


As already pointed out, this thread is about cloaking.

I'm not upset about afk people at all. I don't like cloaks that have zero options for being hunted, so the point about local chat is completely unrelated.

Making local useful as you describe is far from zero effort. It is a bit front loaded as you have to first drive out everyone else, and once that's accomplished it's somewhat simpler to maintain, but that can hardly be described as zero effort. Of course, the 100% safety thing is still a hyberbolic myth, but you just keep trying to sell it.
Goonswarm Federation
#9039 - 2017-03-17 19:55:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Luc Chastot wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:


Not empty posting, Mr. Teckos here ignored this discussion. I'll assume he just forgot about it.


Nope, saw it. Just thought it was a load of bollocks. There are ways to continue ratting, mining, etc. with and AFK cloaker in system. If you don't use them that is not my problem nor CCP's problem. And you want to bring to pressure on a player who cannot lock you, cannot do anything too you, and if AFK can't do anything even if he wanted to....yeah...not seeing the balance thingy.


Good for ratters, miners etc. I guess. I am not talking about AFK cloakers here, but cloaking in general and how it is a perfect intel gathering tool; anyways, you can't seem to have a civil discussion, for some reason, and always retort to ad hominems, strawmans and other fallacies. I'll withhold judgement on your capacity for debate, but you have yet to address my arguments directly, and as I seriously doubt you won't, I'll leave it as is. No point in having a conversation with someone who doesn't want to.

It's better you don't reply to this comment; it is very likely you will do so in your usual manner, in which case I will ignore you until you can provide a sufficient argument.


Right because people in ships with cloaks never die. And the preferred scout these days are ceptors. Yup. I totally see your point. Roll

Cloaks are designed to let players get behind enemy lines, and yes, when a ship is cloaked that can afford considerable safety. However, cloaking ships have noticeable tradeoffs. Weakened tank, limited DPS in some cases, they often have ewar bonuses but that really puts them more in a support role. And yes, they can usually fit a covert cyno. Additionally cloaking ships have to move to really be useful. Sitting at a safe will keep you 100% safe or so close the difference is trivial. But then you present no threat (sure there may be a perception of threat) but this nullifies your "want their cake and to eat it too" assertion. You cannot have 100% safety and be an actual threat in game. So when a cloaky dies they are usually caught on a gate or while moving in some fashion. Even warping to a moon to can entail risk as some people do put up bubbles on moons, and if there are some cans there....well it could end badly. When checking moons in various regions in a cloaky there have been moments where I had to GTFO due to a decloak.

I also find concerns over uncertainty to be nonsense too. There is uncertainty in the game get used to it. If a player decides to go down the road of being sneaky with a group of friends and they all skill for, invest in and fly the appropriate ships…then what is the problem? They might be inconvenient for other players….uhhh isn’t that the point? That even in a cyno jammed system you can face at least some degree of uncertainty and risk? After all do you know if that battlecruiser jumping into your gate camp is a brick tanked cyno ship or just some guy you are about to bone? The point here is uncertainty is a feature, not a bug.

Further, risk is not something that CCP should be balancing. Risk is about player choices. If you make bad/imprudent choices you face high risk…because of your choices and also the choices of other players. If you are prudent and make good decisions you reduce your risk. Risk is not something imposed by the game, but by what you and others do in the game given the mechanics. If a player shows up in your system and you conclude he is likely cloaked, then it is up to you to deal with that new risk. Asking CCP to do it is, IMO, unreasonable.

And this has all been discussed to death.

"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

#9040 - 2017-03-17 20:05:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
As already pointed out, this thread is about cloaking.

I'm not upset about afk people at all. I don't like cloaks that have zero options for being hunted, so the point about local chat is completely unrelated.

Making local useful as you describe is far from zero effort. It is a bit front loaded as you have to first drive out everyone else, and once that's accomplished it's somewhat simpler to maintain, but that can hardly be described as zero effort. Of course, the 100% safety thing is still a hyberbolic myth, but you just keep trying to sell it.


Please explain to me how someone hunts anyone in sov null given the 100% safe free intel of local chat. You're obviously upset about AFK people or you wouldn't be posting here. The term AFK is literally in the title.

Again, it's impossible to talk about AFK cloaking without talking about local chat in sov null. They are one in the same issue. Get rid of local and AFK cloaking is solved. /thread.
Forum Jump