Can't Target What You Can't See - Kill the Prototypes

Since 2005, we have had promises to “look into” modifying the Prototype Cloaking Device. CCP eventually concluded that the concept of allowing players to sit semi-AFK all day in a hostile area - undetectable - somehow adds content. Taken to it’s extreme in NULL SEC, the cloaky camper could actually grief alliance by blanketing one or more Regions of Space. Once a theory, now it’s being done. Grief on a Grand Scale by DBRB, who I used to really enjoy. I’m surprised he’s taken up grief, but … HEY … didn’t CCP devs once say, “Anyone who can’t deal with a Cloaker in System shouldn’t be playing EvE… After all, this is a PvP game?” So, question: How do you deal with multiple regions being cloaky camped by goon alts? I have one simple idea for an UP OR DOWN VOTE:


We had enough discussion. CCP doesn’t want to spend the resources to FIX the damned things (despite dozens of great suggestions over the past 13 years or so). The Prototype didn’t work, and nobody wants to finish working on the Prototype. Until there is some counter measure agreed upon … Let’s just ELIMINATE this much abused prototype item from the menu…

Discuss … [NO! Don’t discuss a “fix” … we had 13+ years to do that. Discuss KILLING THE ITEM.

Here we go again :thinking:

Oh, noes. You got it wrong. There are currently one or more semi-AFK cloaky campers sitting in EVERY system of our Region for the past 60-90 days. Also sitting in the several contiguous Regions around us. CCP advises this does not amount to “griefing” under the Terms of Use, since we can go back to EMPIRE SPACE. I’d rather kill them, but meh… Blame it on your CCP … can’t fight it, so there’s no need to complain - just quit EvE.

So … I’m not suggesting they should spend ANY DEV TIME ON A SOLUTION … There is no need for any new mechanism to limit this.

I’m suggesting ELIMINATION of the Prototype Cloak due to continued ABUSE a/k/a Griefing as defined in Websters DIctionary is not Grief as per the EULA.

Thanks, Goonswarm. Love Ya, DBRB. Hugs to the cloaky camper alts sitting AFK all over DEKLEIN, ETC.

Reason is what hath truly been cloaked here.


They can’t do anything to you, and if they try you can fight them. Cloaked ships are harmless while cloaked, and not very combat capable when uncloaked.

People don’t have to give you fights in this game. The nullsec ratters/miners exercise that right every time they dock up when a neutral appears in local. If someone is wants to leave their name in local at the cost of being able to do nothing, there seems to me no harm done other than to the oppressive free intel provided by local chat. Just like if they want to do so by AFKing in a station.

Cloaks aren’t going anywhere just so your free and perfect intel can be made even more reliable. Too many other uses would suffer, not to mention even less content would happen, just more docking up and logging off. There probably is still some reworking of both cloaks and local that would provide a more direct counter to AFK cloaking that night make you happier (although I doubt it as you will still be at risk to disruption by other players and likely complain about that new form of “griefing”), but it isn’t your inane suggestion to just delete cloaks wholesale.


I would like to point out that it is always necessary to consider who is actually asking for a nerf to cloaks, or rather, who is complaining. The content in my post is completely based on what is written in the thread.

The ones who whine the most …

… are the same people who dock up the instant a neutral comes in, assuming there is no afk cloaker in the system of course, because then they do not even undock.

… are the same people who continuously try to find new reasons for why it needs to be changed. As soon as they find a good one, they stick to it until they have to give up. Then they jump onto the next reason.

… are the same people who rent from bigger alliances, which most often appears to mean they are unable to defend the space they live in. They also wrongly declare it “their” space, while all they are is scrubs paying ISK for even more ISK. They own nothing, especially because they can not defend it.

… are the same people who apparently do nothing but farming isk, which means they have no actual value to the game. All they do is funding the alliance they rent from, or whatever they need the ISK for. It is unreasonable to assume that they accumulate isk for the sake of it, at least for a prolonged amount of time.

… are most likely botters/renters. The reasons are obvious. The afk cloaker is the only guy who disturbs their isk making. When ships behave like bots (docking the instant a neutral enters), then the chances are very high that they actually ARE controlled by bots. Alliance-protected nullsec space is perfect for RMTers, as there is no chance of them ever losing anything, which would translate into hurting their real-life-bottom line.

A reasonable person unable to play a game the way they want would leave the game. Considering that these people do nothing but farming isk in amounts beyond usability, and considering that “the afk cloaker keeps them from” doing the single thing they want to do, anyone staying and complaining must have an ulterior motive.

There are actual alliances out there having no issues with afk cloakers, and their people are in the vast majority compared to those whining.

There is a minority of people continuously creating controversy, attempting to make the whole topic look like it’s a huge issue. Same goes for wars, ganking and bumping, btw.

Given all of the above, it is absolutely save to say that the argument of the whiners that they want to be able to hunt the afk cloaker is completely bogus. It is not true. It is the same logic when it comes to structures and wars. These people assume that, if there was a structure, the target corp would attack the structure … which is complete nonsense, because those who do not want to fight will not fight and giving incentives does not lead anywhere and just exposes the idea as bad game design.

What the renters are trying to achieve is that the afk cloaker could be hunted by their “big brothers”. Not by them. There is zero reason to assume that they would ever, ever try to engage literally anyone, because there is zero evidence that they’re even trying.

Lies. Pretty much everything that crowd comes up with are lies, and it is all because of real money. That is the ONLY sane reason why this topic never, ever dies and why they always, always try to keep it going.

The “solution” to the imaginary problem of afk cloaking is simple:

Ban renters.


Sounds like you already know where you belong.

He means highsec though, because lowsec (which is empire space) would be way too hard for him to deal with.

Another thread full of ■■■■■■■ little whiny babies that can’t deal with life outside of hisec, posting from a 10 year old character with no PVP history. If your play style can’t cope with not being able to AFK rat/mine with impunity then get out of null sec and go back to HS where you belong.

This is part of the game. If he’s truly AFK he can’t hurt you. You can also do plenty with reds in local if you accept the risk vs. reward; that is the cornerstone of null sec pvp. If you are actually paying attention and aligned off, no cloaky alt can catch you before you have time to warp off.

Mod/ISD please move this to the whiny-baby megathread.


That’s what we call an “ad hominem” fallacy.

What you think of the poster is none business. Keep your useless opinion for yourself.

There is no ad hominem outside of your head. My post is on point and accurate. It correctly sums up the most important points about the people who continuously complain. You can disagree all you want, that does not change anything about it, and it certainly does not change that it is important to consider Who wants What and most importantly Why!

Calling a spade a spade is not an ad hominem, and the above post absolutely is not just an opinion. You are free to do the legwork necessary to learn, all by yourself, that it is in fact spot on. The afk cloaker thread is there for everyone to read through and along.

Have fun and stop attempting derailment of this thread.

1 Like

This is the definition of an ad hominem.

You can’t find any argument against the topic, so you attack the person.

No, it is not. With your logic people should be incapable and forbidden of actually talking about others, which is outright nuts! That would allow people with bad intentions to pose as good people, and that only works because no one who noticed ill intentions ever spoke up due to the fallacy behind the ad hominem fallacy.

You can not silence me. In every aspect of life it is important to know who you are dealing with, and how that person thinks and behaves. Any other approach will always lead to bad experiences due to people smarter than that abusing/manipulating/playing you for their own gain.

There is nothing more to add to this from my side, now please stop your attempts of derailing the thread.

1 Like

It is not MY logic, it is how it is in the real world, with adults.
When you talk about the speaker and not about the dicourse, you are making an ad hominem, which is what children do when they can’t accept to be wrong (also politics when they want to get stupid people’s likes).

You are making an ad hominem attack, which is forbidden by the forum rules which you accept when posting here, making your post against the forum rules. part 2.1

certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Personal Attacks

section 1.3 also states

Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be.

So yes, the forum rules can “silence you”.
Pleased to have taught you something.

Nobody here gives a ■■■■ about what you think of the persons/players.

Removing the tech 1 cloak isn’t going to end cloaky camping. The folks doing the camping here have more than enough isk lying around to plex an alpha account to use a tech 2 or a covert ops cloak if they want to.

This is a perennial issue and it’s not something that’s going to be solved right now simply because of the Goons using their NGSA plan to seed cloaky campers throughout the north. It’s used by many groups to shut down ratting and mining - it’s actively part of many on-going conflicts.

If there is going to be any change, I could see adding a fuel requirement to cloaks to help combat the AFK camping, but generally speaking I don’t see any major changes to camping coming down the pike given how controversial those changes would likely be. Given how quickly this thread devolved into name calling and rules lawyering, I think that much is obvious.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.