Harden the ■■■■ up. This isn’t WoW.
2 Likes
You just answered your own question. You won’t ever catch a cloaked ship unless the player is AFK, which means the sole purpose of the change is preventing people from going AFK while remaining logged in and visible in local. IOW, making local a more effective defense for farmers.
3 Likes
We’ll try again.
If you know he’s afk or not. You know whether it’s safe to rat or not. This is an unacceptable situation for null. In fact it’s better to let people afk cloak than it is to let null ratters know if it’s safe or not.
That’s why nothing has been done yet.
2 Likes
The point is you are full of ■■■■. WHs have local, it is delayed by action not time. You chose to define it via time so you could say local has no local…which is factually wrong. Now you want to back track and make ■■■■ up. Face it, your credibility is shot and should start posting with an alt. Now GTFO.
Yeah and it is stupid.
Please stop Mike. If this were a two way street it you might be on to something, it isn’t so you aren’t. Seriously you aren’t this dumb…stop pretending to be.
Indeed. An AFK player is not a threat. What most people are asking for is a way to determine if a player is AFK and remove them from the game so as to enhance the functions of local. That is. Nothing more. All the other rhetoric is simply bullshite to obfuscate the point.
1 Like
So much hate for so futile facts.
My dear, i don’t care about you.
If you want to insult me when i did not, and use such words when i did not, it’s your call.
You are just showing your kind true face. 
I don’t feel the need to justify my words more than i already did. Even less to such a person like yourself. 
You are still arguing against a point he clearly didn’t intend to make. I guess that’s what happens when you have no logical foundation for your own stance.
It does not matter if you can’t catch an active cloaker. Hell, 99% of all objections to changes to cloaking is that it hurts ATK cloakers, no matter how ridiculous that is. It should be enough that they have an onus to secure their own safety through more than just pushing a button and then going to go take a nap because they have ultimate unbreakable safety.
This sort of change would not make local a better defense. It makes the guy hunting cloakers their defense. I don’t know about you, but that sounds a lot like EVE working as intended. It’s not free, it’s not effortless, It’s someone actively defending their space against hostile intruders---- and the very thought that you might have to defend yourself against an unwanted attack has your panties in a dry rotted bunch.
No, you don’t know if it’s safe or not, you are making it safe through active defense of your space against hostile intruders. It is in no way a default condition, but rather the result of persistent ongoing activity.
You just need to stop being upset that people aren’t allowed to somehow kill soft targets when they aren’t even in space with their target. That’s all this is about.
1 Like
No. If you try to find the cloaker but after a while can’t, what does that tell you about his status?
So? What’s your point?
The only way to know is to actively hunt him. If you stop hunting him, you don’t know anything. That person is certainly not fielding miners and such since he 's obviously tied up hunting the potential hostile, and likely no one else is either. Your ATK camper is potentially costing his opponents far more ISK in evading than he would ever inflict catching a miner or two. Best of all, everyone gets to have fun, engaging gameplay rather than Blueballs online.
You seem very concerned that you be able to shoot at people that aren’t in space with you. Those soft targets you want aren’t some kind of god given right. If you choose to hunt people who have go through the effort of securing their space and continue to actively hunt down any potential hostile, why should this be easy, let alone so safe that you can just go afk?
Because the burden of defense should fall on the defenders trying to hold sov. They do not need more advantages.
2 Likes
I see you’re trying to avoid the obvious truth. If you know the cloaker is active you wont undock. What you’ll do is log off, or go afk yourself and come back later and try again. No one would ever risk their ratting ships which is an absolute necessity to balance null ratting.
For obvious reasons this is not going to happen.
No people aren’t entitled to soft targets. But even more so, you are not entitled to know whether a cloaker is afk or not.
Once local is toast, you can spend effort to clear systems.
No, but having to attempt to hunt them down isn’t an entitlement. It’s a skilled and time consuming activity.
Again… They aren’t in space with you. You don’t get to kill people you aren’t in space with. It’s absolutely no concern of yours. The only concern you can even sort of claim is that they are mining or making isk which can sort of indirectly affect you in the most negligible fashion possible, and you can prevent that by simply getting into their space— either they spend effort hunting you down or they fly compromised fits in fleets, but either way you have slowed or stopped them from using the space… and once again it involved engaging gameplay for all involved rather than blueballs online.
This is the dumbest argument I’ve heard in ages.
People are camping your system? ■■■■■■■ leave. If they’re AFK they won’t be following you.
1 Like
The burden of defense falls completely on the defender if they are putting out ships to hunt potential hostiles.
It’s funny how the pro-afk crowd seems to believe that having to face any sort of opposition means that local is somehow zapping them out of space without any effort at all on the part of the defender.
I mean… how about the invading ship actually backs up the threat with action, lights a cyno and kills the hunting ship? Why do they need to be indefinitely safe without any further action once they are in system? Why should people be forced into playing the prey to an invader, rather than being allowed to ship up and hunt them down or drive them out?
The same could be said for hunting soft targets. Some apparently soft targets aren’t so soft.
And if it’s just a matter of time to hunt an afk cloakers, it won’t be much time, it won’t be that skill intensive and it will clear the system for ratting until another name pops into local, in which case rinse and repeat. That’s unacceptable.
It doesn’t matter Mike. Cloaks aren’t changing without changes to local.
Sure, you can just give up the space without a fight… which is honestly the only option open at this point since there is no way to force any sort of non-consensual action against someone under a cloak at present.
What are you even smoking bud, how is it “giving up the space?” Now you’re saying an AFK cloaker is taking your sov by sitting afk cloaked? You’re high as ■■■■.
We are discussing an active cloaker being able to evade.
It’s not a matter of time. It’s a matter of skill and perseverance.
It’s not your business what happens in a system when you aren’t there. You need to stop focusing on what people do when you aren’t present.
Your suggestion was to move away from a camper. That’s giving up the space.
Option A should be to ship up and hunt the guy down or drive him out. You know, proactively defend your space.
Funny, whats the title of this thread again?
2 Likes
It’s impossible to discuss anything about cloaks without doing it in this thread. So here we are.
Your contention is that making it possible to hunt down a cloaker means its always just a matter of time before the cloaker is eliminated.
That’s not true if the cloaker is actively evading. Going AFK should always come at the risk of being blown up, that’s just EVE working as intended.
So if you want to disrupt people’s use of space, feel free to go there and disrupt it. Just don’t feel entitled to doing so indefinitely by being afk when there are those who would actively hunt you down.
It’s an absolutely ridiculous stance to whine about how local keeps people safe when it’s really the fact that someone will come and shoot you if you hang around being hostile too long.