Oh noes…I just was ratting for the third night now with an AFK cloaky in system with me…who never gets a kill during the times I tend rat.
Cloaks are so OP, right @Mike_Voidstar 
Again… or else what? What are you going to do?
Increase the amount of spelling mistakes?
I was watching you 
In local…
1 Like
Well for crying out loud say, “Hi” next time. 
1 Like
I’m still shocked that people don’t yet understand that AFK-cloaking to mess with people’s heads is valid gameplay.
AFK cloaking is a form of PvP. Plain and simple. It’s psychological warfare. It’s shattering the illusion of safety that a friendly local chat presents. If you dock up and hide because a potential hostile is cloaked in local, that’s your choice, not theirs. They haven’t done anything to you other than exist in the same solar system as you. If staying docked up to continue hiding from the cloaked hostile in local impacts your gameplay, income, etc., that’s on you, not them.
“But what about risk vs reward?” you ask?
Simple. The AFK cloaker has to get to the system in question, which isn’t always an easy or safe proposition, but once they’re in-system they can stay there indefinitely, and in complete safety as long as they don’t make any mistakes. Fairly low risk overall. (Roughly the same level of risk as someone with docking rights to a non-kickout station has, but without the access to any of the station facilities, but I digress.) But what about the reward? The AFK cloaker has no control over the reward side of the equation here. None. Nada. Whether they inflict any “damage” to their targets (in the form of lost income/activity) depends entirely on how they react to the AFK cloaker’s presence. So, low risk for potentially no reward? Sounds balanced to me.
Ultimately, the people who want to do away with AFK cloaking don’t have a problem with AFK cloaking as a game mechanic, they have a problem with their reaction to AFK cloaking. This isn’t an issue with game mechanics, it’s an issue with human psychology, which means that CCP is 100% right to leave it as-is.
2 Likes
Totally agree except for the low risk part of the equation being so low that they can AFK with absolute impunity while being outside of a dock. I don’t even like tethering.
Low risk is fine. No Risk while in space and in the presence of active hostiles is not.
1 Like
Right but it is always risk versus reward, and since there is no reward that couldn’t also be gotten docked in a station, like local, there shouldn’t be much if any risk.
EDIT Queue the local discussion 
1 Like
Two minor nitpicks. (Well, one nitpick, one question.)
-
Given the amount of risk involved in getting to the system in the first place, I think its unfair to call the endeavor “no risk”. There’s a reasonable risk up front during their transit to the system they plan to camp, but virtually none once they arrive and get off gate. (Assuming they don’t do something stupid like log off by a gate/station, wander into an asteroid field and get decloaked, etc.) I stand by my assessment of “fairly low risk”.
-
What do you mean by “in the presence of active hostiles?” If you’re talking about being AFK cloaked on grid with combat ships actively trying to decloak you, that’s hardly a no-risk scenario (and you’re probably not AFK either). If you’re talking about simply being in the same system with people who are docked up in terror of your presence, that’s hardly “in the presence of active hostiles.” Or were you going for somewhere in-between?
(#2 may sound like I’m being snarky, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I’m legitimately trying to understand your exception.)
Couldn’t agree with you more here.
Someone fleeing to dock up because a cloak is ‘somewhere’ in system isn’t really an ‘active hostile’.
Because AFK is legal in EVE and so is cloaking.
It is a garbage dump for people who are afraid to undock.
4 Likes
I was ratting yet again with an AFK cloaker in system…OMG, Mike totally told me this was not possible!!!
2 Likes
Why… why must cloaks be so broken 
And exactly how are cloaks broken?
Maybe because once the guy gets in system and presses that cloak button there is no realistic way anyone can counter it…
Counter what? Leaving a name in local chat?
That does nothing. If they want to fight you, they have to uncloak and open themselves up to all sorts of counters.
2 Likes
It’s so you cannot use local as a perfect intel tool.
1 Like
So are you trying to tell me that a cloaky camper has no affect on the game… because if that what your saying your kidding yourself. People see that name in local not knowing if that neut/red is really playing the game or if they just logged in after downtime and left the house. A person who wants to stop people ratting/mining or keep eyes on an enemy staging should need to put some effort in to it and not just log on and go AFK just to mess with people
Well yes, that’s the whole point. AFK cloaking makes local less effective as an intel tool, which is a good thing because local is too effective. It’s supposed to be a social tool, not an immediate “dock up now” warning every time a threat is present.
A person who wants to stop people ratting/mining or keep eyes on an enemy staging should need to put some effort in to it and not just log on and go AFK just to mess with people
Alternatively, people who want to rat or mine should put some effort into it instead of just RMT botting 23/7. It’s trivially easy to organize a PvE operation with an AFK cloaker in system, you just have to accept that EVE is a PvP sandbox and you aren’t entitled to whatever theoretical maximum ISK/hour you’ve calculated for solo farming with your best PvE ship. Farm in PvP ships, keep a standing fleet, and if that AFK cloaker tries to do anything but sit idle with a name in local you press F1 and get a killmail.
The problem is not AFK cloakers, it’s RMT botters (and players with a skill ceiling equivalent to a RMT bot) who refuse to accept that EVE is a PvP game and whose only response to a potential threat existing is to run away and hide until it leaves.
Alternatively, it makes local a far more effective tool. If I wanted to, I could put cloaky eyes in all of delve/geminate/fountain and give you the location of any player in those regions simply based on local. I would take 0 risk in doing so and gain an insane amount of intel. So, arguing that it makes local less effective isn’t really valid. It’s also most certainly not supposed to be a social tool, considering that 0% of players talk in local lol…
I actually couldn’t agree more. However, I think that activity should be a great part of deciding whether or not you lose this battle between hunter and prey. If someone is afk ratting/mining 23/7, then they wouldn’t see the 1 enemy enter local and the ratter would die (because they were afk). Conversely, if someone is afk cloaky camping, then they can’t be countered, can’t be killed, and get to decide when and where any fight they want takes place. That is way too much power. So, the idea that being able to “afk rat” is op, simply proves the point further that the ability to afk camp is op… The only difference is when someone rats in their carrier, you can kill them… you can’t when they cloaky camp you.
TLDR: An afk ratter dies when somone catches them. An afk pvp player (cloaky camping) will never die, and gets to choose their fights however they like.
If your response is “Have a response fleet ready”, then you need to realize this person is cloaky camping 23/7. Not only is it unrealistic for any group to have a standing fleet up ALL DAY (other than insanely large alliances like horde, test, goons, NC, ect.), but it’s also unrealistic to expect them to be able to react in time. Especially, when dealing with something like the mar5hy camp or goon camp of Kalevala/Deklein. It’s simply unrealistic to respond to such a large area in time 23/7…