I’m sorry that wasn’t my question. You can nicely ask, but unless you can point me to a rule where I’m not allowed to voice my constructive opinion to the CSM members, then you have no power to enforce your request.
@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode @ISD_Lord_Arranoth @CCP_Aurora if one of you three, after cleanup, can declare that the rules of discourse for this thread must be adhered to as repeatedly stated above, that would be great. Opposition-defiant forum trolls are derailing this thread out of spite because I didn’t say “please” 
.
Mike and Brisc have already pitched in - waiting for the other CSMers to pitch in as well.
1 Like
So - one rule for the CSM’ers, and another for the rest of us ? OK - Can I specify that a thread I create is accesible only to people not called “Archer en Tilavine”. Would you accept my “Rules of discourse”, or isn’t that how the Eve forums work ?
1 Like
Umm no. It’s because you lack the power to dictate posting rules. My orignal feedback was directed directly at a CSM members post, which is exactly what I’m allowed to do thanks.
I am as curious as you are about the CSM’s view on this alleged issue, and would love to participate in a debate with them on the matter without the usual trolling and derailing. That being said, please read the official rules for this particular section of the forum. What you suggest is clearly not following the rules posted in ccp falcon’s message. You insisting on your self-proclaimed rules will probably have the opposite effect. Let’s just hope more csm reps respond (more than in the thread about the abandoned state of structures) and create a spot to finally have an open debate with OUR reps.
With Brisc and Mike answering, you may have reached the maximum number of CSM members that will post. Perhaps one or two more, but their (CSM) history Isn’t the best in regards to posting in these forums.
4 Likes
The general consensus among the community (atleast from what i can tell) seems to be cloaking is fine as is
2 Likes
This reminds me of that thread that somebody started to post their own screenshots. Then they became enraged when other people started posting their screenshots.
3 Likes
AFK Cloaking is the counter to perfect safety through local.
Baiting, which is ultimately a sign that you can defend your system, is the counter to AFK Cloaking.
When you can’t form a bait-fleet, you can’t form a defense fleet in case of an attack.
When you can’t bait, then you can’t defend the system.
When you can’t defend the system, you’re not entitled to keeping it.
When you can’t defend the system, it raises the question how you got it in the first place.
When you paid for that system, then you don’t deserve it at all.
There’s a history of way over ten thousand posts,
which effectively establishes that there is no problem with afk cloaking.
The problem is with those who benefit the most of its alteration, or removal. Any alteration to afk cloaking ultimately turns it into something where the “owner” of the system is being aware of the afk cloakers’ presence, completely voiding the point of afk cloaking.
Looking at the afk cloaky thread(s) and the people who post in there reveals a lot about the people who are arguing against it. Some feel entitled to owning a system (they’ve paid for), some will flat out tell you that the afk cloaker prevents them from undocking. Some will keep moving the goalposts over and over and over and some will directly lie into your face making up ■■■■■■■■ that’s no where near actual reality.
Often enough they attempt to portrait themselves as victims, too. None of them - and I really mean not one of them in thousands of posts - ever genuinely accepts the responsibilities of owning a system, indicating that most of them have never been in the position of actually claiming a system by themselves, indicating that they never were able to defend it anyway. They wrongly believe that the ISK they’re spending entitled them to keeping it.
The nonsensicality of their behaviour becomes extremely apparent when considering that they, who apparently can not play the game due to the afk cloaker, keep “playing” anyway. In form of whining on the forums or complaining in local, from the safety of the station.
Especially those who say that they not enjoy doing anything else are lacking any and all credibility, due to the fact that someone who can not play a game seeks out a different game, instead of complaining about how he can not play the game for weeks, even months, as evidenced by the thread.
AFK Cloaking is the counter to intel from local enabling perfect safety.
Baiting is the counter to AFK cloaking. When he bites, he and his fleet dies.
When you can’t form a baiting fleet,
then you ultimately can not ever truly defend your system in case of an attack,
which means you’re not entitled to having it.
Paying for it does not entitle to keeping or using it.
This thread is ridiculous.
All those who have the biggest issues with afk cloaking …
… are exactly those who are disturbed in their botting/afk ratting/mining!
Everyone else, for some magical reason, can deal with an afk cloaker.
We never see this level of artificial outrage and issue-inflation about afk ratting or afk mining.
And why?
Because it’s bears and farmers who create the artificial outrage and issue-inflation in the first place.
Of course they only complain about “afk” things when they works against them.
As soon as “afk” benefits them, they will defend it to the best of their abilities.
They always do and always did.
What we see is that farmers, bears, and potential botters/RMTers, for years,
keep trying to create the illusion of a problem which only affects them and their income.
When you support a change of afk cloaking …
… which will ultimately always allow the target to tell if the cloaker is afk or not …
… then you directly or indirectly support afk ratters, afk miners, botters and RMTers.
They’re the ones who benefit the most of any change to it …
… thus they’re the ones crying the most about it.
There is no problem with afk cloaking.
There is a problem with feeling entitled to owning a system.
People are falling for years of assholes slowly creating the illusion of an issue.
You owe me 173 PLEX … mate. Consider it a friendly gesture from your side, compensating me for the time spent writing this, as apology for your behaviour (you do not get to set the rules of conversations) and because it’ll help me sub this account, because engaging and killing people as an Alpha -10 is only half the fun.
5 Likes
No. The community does not desire it. A small number of renter trash farmers and RMT botters desire it so they can make their farming safer and more profitable, and they are loudly spamming their demands for more safety.
Additionally, no viable solution has ever been presented that is not a thinly-veiled attempt to make RMT farming more effective. In all the years of trying nobody has managed to come up with a counter to cloaking that would be effective, balanced, and fun for everyone involved. There is no idea that has enough merit to be worth presenting to CCP.
4 Likes
Community want it, a lot of people ask for it, a lot of player have stop playing cause of it.
End of perma cloack will be the most important thing for healt of eve online when it will happen. The whole argumentation to protect perma cloacking are :
-We can’t caught people without it => It’s totally false
- It’s reduce botter => And true player wrong argumentation
- It’s local counter => local is counter by free intel you have from the eve map.
- It will reduce pvp activity to nerf it => it will increase pvp activity, hunter could become the target.
1 Like
No. The same RMT botters and renter trash incessantly repeat their demands for it. Don’t confuse that with legitimate popular support.
It’s local counter => local is counter by free intel you have from the eve map.
Oh look, someone who doesn’t understand how local and cloaking interact.
Without the ability to remain in local indefinitely local is a 100% accurate warning of the presence of a threat. If a non-blue name is in local you know it is an active player because nobody will go AFK in space and leave their ship to be destroyed. And so when you see the name you immediately dock up. And then as soon as that player goes AFK and logs out their name leaves local, immediately telling you that it is safe to undock and resume farming.
With the ability to remain in local indefinitely through the means of AFK cloaking local is no longer 100% accurate. It can tell you that a threat might be there, but since the threat is there 23/7 you either have to accept the risk of farming with a non-blue name in local or permanently abandon the system and all income you would be getting from it.
Removing AFK cloaking without also removing local is nothing but a completely inappropriate buff to RMT botters and bot-like players.
it will increase pvp activity, hunter could become the target.
Nonsense. With no ability to use AFK cloaking to mitigate local it’s way too easy to dock up as soon as a threat enters local and never be vulnerable to PvP threats. PvP players know this and would stop trying.
2 Likes
When CSM member receive vote it’s for they’re idea. If people vote to people who want nerf cloacky… it s means maybe people want to remove perma cloack.
1 Like
On the off-chance this actually works: @Kenneth_Feld @Merkelchen @Gobbins @Vily @Phantomite @Innominate @Torvald_Uruz @Maria_Taylor what are your positions on AFK Cloaking? Mike and Brisc already commented.
I have heard it from a lot of folks, none of whom are enter trash farmers or RMT botters.
1 Like
How can you be so sure?
1 Like
There weren’t in Brothers of Tangra and they haven’t been banned.
CCP doesn’t ban farmer trash.
2 Likes
I meant the RMT botters.
Uh, sure, right. I’m sure it’s entirely a coincidence that the people arguing for cloaking nerfs in public are almost 100% renter trash and/or RMT botters. I’m sure there’s this silent majority of legitimate players that wants cloaking nerfs but are too terrified to admit it in public for some reason.
2 Likes