Ah sure so again we fall in the same place, it’s ok to piss whole alliances and blocks removing local , but not ok few cloakers and explorers
False equivalence yet again.
Same as yours , I don’t think 99%of players are cloaky AFK campers and explorers
But you’re willing to sacrifice the gameplay of 99% to deal with that 1%.
no it’s the opposite. There are way more nullsec /lowsec people that is targeted/affected by AFK camping than explorers and campers , so with the change , few people will be affected ( not disrupted, y can still do the same thing, just not AFK completely now)
Show me valid numbers. Because only about 20 to 25% of players are even in null. Most of them aren’t even having this issue or can deal with it without freaking out and docking up.
That leaves 75 to 80% who will be negatively impacted by your change. Higher when you count the nullsec groups who are able to deal with cloaky campers.
Exploring is a major profession. There are almost certainly more explorers working out of high sec than there are nullsec ratters period.
More than 7000 posts ago. I remember this one from the old forums.
I would agree, that’s why I’m not a fan of trying to targetted-fix this via some change to cloaking mechanics. There’s almost certain to be a knock-on effect to actual cloaky gameplay.
Though in this specific case I’d be fine with just letting you safe-log from a cloak.
This is another good point and mark against cloak-based fixes. This sort of thing isn’t a problem in WHs so gameplay there shouldn’t get nuked because of a gameplay problem in Null.
Except plenty of people use cloaky scouts of one sort or another to scout for their fleets, so all of those people would count as affected as well. And that’s even assuming we take your assumption as correct, which I’m not sure is accurate here.
Overall I think the goal here should be to identify the problem and, if possible a solution that has almost no substantive impact on anyone who isn’t AFK camping, but otherwise let CCP deal with it.
Trying to play favorites with a solution like this just guarantees that CCP is never going to implement it because of the backlash they’d get.
Which is a problem with local being overpowered, not cloaking. We do not need to nerf AFK cloaking and make local even more overpowered.
Psi-Ops is absolutely something of benefit and part of Eve’s gameplay.
However, it only works against weak and risk-averse players. We do not need gameplay changes when there’s already a much better solution available: ignore the psychological manipulation.
Only if we also make docking no longer auto-repeat, if you don’t click the “continue docking” button every 2-3 minutes your ship is ejected into space (and if you’re in highsec flagged as a suspect). After all, if sitting idle while AFK is unacceptable then why should you be able to do it while docked?
Nonsense. A miner can AFK mine right now without having their mining lasers shut off automatically. It just isn’t a good idea to do it in dangerous space.
And you’re also ignoring the difference between active wealth generation (mining) and passively sitting idle in a safespot doing nothing (AFK cloaking). Obviously activities that generate wealth should be more difficult and require more effort than sitting idle in space.
Because RMT botters and bot-like players do not need to be buffed.
Okay so someone tell me that this is gameplay:
This is a stream about a cloacky camper absolutely not doing anything for hours.
Where is the active element here? Where is the drawback for such activity?
Why can someone in “My” system cloak infinitely without any imput?
For the love of god please check your spelling before you post. I mean the spelling is right up in the title even. 
Looks like an intel stream.
Maybe intel gathering? There is a big war going on. Intel gathering isn’t valid meta gaming?
Only drawback I see is someone has to waste their paid subscription gathering intel.
Because it’s allowed? Maybe if it’s YOUR system you should post some no loitering signs. I hear they are effective.
Oh you are the “no valid argument” guy this time around…
Theres always a few.
The whole point of this thread would be the “Why is it allowed?”. And the “Local is a free intel tool” is not cutting it. Its not enough to support a non interactive play stlye that actively punishing others in the process.
Also. A ship that is able to cloak should never open anything but a Coverty Cyno.
What is the counter argument on adding fuel to cloak? Afaik there is none. Why didnt that happen yet?
Where is the drawback to being docked for a long period of time?
Why not?
Why didnt that happen yet?
Because it’s a pointless and unnecessary nerf.
Its not enough to support a non interactive play stlye that actively punishing others in the process.
The only thing actively punishing anyone is the fact that RMT botters and bot-like players are incapable of doing anything but hiding in station unless they have indisputable proof via local that no hostile players are present in the system.
1 Like
Well that’s obviously because CCP’s design team think the cloak is fine as it is right now, hence the lack of changes.
When CCP notices that there’s an actual and legitimate problem (for example, FAX remote repairs), they’ll take steps to explore potential changes (for example, nerfing amounts, adding stacking penalties, or tangentially addressing it with stuff like shield and armor resistances.)
Depends on what kind of structure. Is it a citadel? It can be shot down.
10+ Thousands of forum replies point out exactly that there is a problem with Cloaky AFK camping. Every single fanfest people have asked about whats being doen about it. If its not a problem there wouldnt be an argument.
An NPC station. Where is the drawback to being docked in an NPC station for a long period of time?
You get shot on undock.
10+ thousand posts of RMT botters demanding a buff and reasonable people telling them “no” only proves that people with terrible ideas can be very persistent in lobbying for them.
And you can get shot when you decloak.
1 Like
You know who are mainly agains cloaky camping? The regural bobs who make their isk ingame and spend their free time farming so they can sit in their ships. Obviously people who buy 19000 PLEX and jsut cash in wont have a problem with it. Someone owning 96 account using 95 of them to AFK cloaky camp wont have a problem with it. John Doe getting home from 12 hours of work to makes some isk for his next ship WILL have a problem with it.
At this point its pretty clear that it IS a problem. It might not be for you or the 96 account guy. Maybe not for the swipers. But it IS a problem. And something needs to be done. Obvisouly CCP will have this on the bottom of their list because why would they potentially lose 95 AFK cloaky subs just so John Doe gets his fun…
We have multiple solutions for this problem without limiting currenly existing valid cloak use. So again i dont understand why this is still a PROBLEM and not something already resolved.
But CCP can’t fix cowards’ lack of a spine… what do you want them to do about it? There’s no problem with the game which is what CCP can actually do something about.