Main AFK cloaky thread

(Old Pervert) #302

The ingame map can show player-based activities… rats killed, ships lost, etc.

That said, it’s a very poor pittance compared to just looking in local and seeing if there’s someone to hunt or not.

As someone who enjoys roaming, I would hate to have to probe every system. If they took local away, I’d like to see dscan range doubled, sheerly for improving the speed at which you can find players to hunt.

(Teckos Pech) #303

I use it to get an idea of where to go. There have been many times where I get there and there is nobody there.

There is more things you can look at to see where would be a good to place to go hunter.

(Davian Thule Pirkibo) #304

CCp has already decided on this issue with the upcoming arrays, the first step to any invasion in nullsec is blanketing the enemy systems with cloaky campers, the power to teleport a fleet instantly at any time whenever you want on any target without a counter or warning (the “counters” most here present require your alliance to have an idle combat fleet 24/7, which is stupid and goes against the idea of alliances being able to be single timezone based like most null defense mechanics).

Besides, cloaky camping would not go away with no local, all the other intel that hunters have will still exist ie npcs killed, jumps in system and many more including zkill reports. Your request for a removal of local as an “equalizer” to ending cloaky camping is absolutely ridicioulous, but then again none of you are involved in maintaining sov, so I doubt you would understand. Hell, I wouldn’t have an issue with cloaky dudes getting buffed in another way, but you arent breaking the nullsec meta because you want wh style content in null, besides intel bots can use dscan instead (a pretty common intel tool that is used as a counter argument)

(Teckos Pech) #305

And here we have, despite the nerf to cynos…the “but cyno!” argument still lives.

How do you know there is a cloaked ship in system with you?

Who is advocating for simply removing local?

I have been involved in sov NS for about 8 years.

(Sonya Corvinus) #306

Ok…then why are you responding about group fights in WHs where multiple groups decide to switch ships to make the fights more even?

(Davian Thule Pirkibo) #307

Eyes on gates of importance will become vastly more common, you have to decloak to use a stargate.

A fair number of folks here

(Teckos Pech) #308

You have not answered the question. How do you know a pilot is in system and cloaked. What precisely tells you he is there?

Again, who? If it is a fair number you can give a name.

Personally, I think you sense the traps here which is why you are not giving straight forward answers.

Mass cloaky camper
(Davian Thule Pirkibo) #309

If you own the system you can tell by the number of pilots metric in system vs the blues you know are present say in your standing fleet and station. this metric is accesable in the star map.

You literally just need to scroll up to the top to see people say “remove local” and that.

You being incredibly pedantic is hardly a trap,

(Teckos Pech) #310

Nice dance, but it that does not work.

Again, what mechanic(s) tell you that there is a cloaked ship in system?

So…you can’t name them.

Then why not give a straight forward answer.

You know a person is in system and cloaked if you cannot find them in station or in space with probes yet they show up in…local.

There we have it. Local is how you know a cloaker is in system.

You just did the usual: We need to get rid of AFK cloaking and nerf cloaks, but leave local alone dance. I have seen it for years and sadly you are not really good at it.

(Lena Crews) #311

Come on, this is a juvenile way to argue. But since you want to play it that way, here are some from this thread.

Natacha BelleroseJun 21
Remove local, problem solved.

Adama KanjusJun 21
yes. please remove local for low and null or at least make a regional local or something.

Linus GorpJun 21
Just get on with it already and delete nullsec local.

The first reply in this thread was June 21st… and we got 3 “remove local” posts on that first day.

(Teckos Pech) #312

Yes, and there are those who have argued for a more balanced approach, removing local, make cloaks vulnerable to probes, and introducing the OA. But notice guys like Davian do not want to discuss that.

There is a long, long history here on this topic that goes back years. To pretend that the positions are remove local or nerf cloaks is itself juvenile.

Further, Davian refuses to acknowledge how the mechanics that work in regards to this issue, which is also juvenile.

In fact, like a bunch of toddlers the “nerf [AFK] cloak” side really do not mean it when they say they want “a means to scan down cloakers”. They know full well that AFK cloaking would stop 100% so there’d be nothing to scan. They want to reduce the risk to their preferred game play via Dev fiat.

There is the possibility of a serious discussion here, and I’d be fine having it. But it is not a discussion the other side want to have. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That is not balanced.

(Lena Crews) #313

Teck… I have pointed out many issues that you tend to not respond to… instead removing one or two lines that you want to focus on (often with statements like: “you can’t name anyone in the thread who is arguing to just remove local”… when everyone can scroll to the top of the thread to see that exact thing happening.)

-No local (even with alternative intel methods like you’ve mentioned) makes hunting take more time. In heavily populated areas (like Providence) this may not matter to hunters. But in areas of null with 5-10 empty systems for every one with a player in it, this adds an additional step to the hunting process… determining if there is a player in the system to hunt.

-Removing of free intel will always more adversely impact those visiting a system… because the locals always have easier access to other (non-free) forms of intel.

My core difference is I believe that local increases interaction between players… and I view that as a good thing. I view successfully running away as interaction… it’s just one the hunter loses.

(Teckos Pech) #314

So what? No really, so what? Right now hunting is fast, but almost always fruitless. If hunting becomes more fruitful but takes longer it is not at all clear that this is a bad thing. In fact, it could be a good thing. I’d rather spend 20 minutes knowing I have a good chance of finding a target vs. 20 minutes with very little chance.

This is debatable as has been pointed out many, many, many times. If local and intel channels lets the players see hostiles coming 5, 10 or more jumps out, then you are quite simply wrong.

And you are wrong except in the most trivial sense. Looking at an avatar in local, maybe even smacking in local is the basest forms of interaction. That your target might have docked up when you were 3 jumps out is not really interaction except in the most trivial sense. Seriously, “I play a video game, where when I come into the same area as another player they will almost surely take steps to avoid meaningful interaction with me,” is not exactly a thrilling endorsement of the game. But hey, if that is what you like good for you.

Come, play Eve where you can make people dock up! Gee that sounds like fun. :roll_eyes:

Oh and regarding this point:

First off the guy literally could not name anyone and my point was that he wanted to argue against a caricature…a straw man. Yes, some advocate just removing local. Others do not. Devian did not want to engage in a meaningful discussion on the topic. He steadfastly refused to acknowledge the role local plays in this issue/problem. He realized what he was doing and that is why he refused.

(ashofski) #315

so you’re saying “There’s a big meanie who is [posting on the forums] and [I don’t like the topic], but I [can’t stop the thread from happening] and I can’t even just go [read another thread]. I can’t [stop said thread from happening] and even though I know [exactly how the thread is going to go], I [will make a wall o’ text complaining and will try to troll the thread] because [I really want this conversation to stop happening]. CCP please stop the meanie from being able to [make a thread about a topic that I don’t want to be discussed even though it will probably amount to nothing]”…

I hope someone posts about this topic every hour until you (and all the other AFK cloaky supporters) stop reading them and just ignore the topic all together and go about your business, and I hope the second you do that the devs chime in and ask for input from players via that thread and decide to squash AFK cloaking and it ruins your week/month/life forever… think that would be some real poetic justice…

(Scipio Artelius) #316

Why would we stop reading? Tears such as yours are delicious.

(ashofski) #317


dear CCP, this is why you’ve lost 25% of your active users in 9 months.

I hope you’ll enjoy reminiscing about the game you used to play (forums you used to read?) when CCP turns off the servers in 18 months

(Scipio Artelius) #318
  1. Your figures are wrong

  2. Many people have claimed EVE’s death within 18 months before. When the game is still going strong a couple of years from now, people will still be claiming it’s death in 18 months.

Inaccurate and nothing original. Sounds like a standard AFK cloaking thread.

(ashofski) #319

yet you’re still spending time and energy to read/reply…

40k -> 30k average daily active users is a 25% reduction… basic arithmetic must not be your strong suit…


(Scipio Artelius) #320

I like spending time on the forum. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You might want to take a look at understanding what that graph actually means, because it doesn’t mean what you are claiming it does.

That’s not even close to a graph of daily active use.

So my arithmetic is fine. Your ability to reason though?

(Jonah Gravenstein) #321

Someone said the same thing in 2003, and every year since; yet here we are 14 years later.