So you are refusing the address the questions then?
Of course you are.
You proposed monitoring for âenough variety of keyboard/ mouse inputâ, the program posted creates the input that you are monitoring for. And now youâre moving the goalposts to something else in a desperate attempt to somehow still be right.
But NOBODY is going to use that application if the result is going to be things like turning off the cloaking module or warping to zero while AFK.
Except it would be trivially easy to define safe areas of the screen (where there are no interface buttons) and prevent any clicks outside of those areas. Youâre nitpicking that a literal 5 minute implementation isnât perfect when the additional changes to make a finished version would take maybe 15 minutes more at most.
Cool. So you concede that we have utterly demolished your idea to the point that you have no further option besides leaving the discussion. At least now youâre honest about the situation.
Whatâs it going to take to make this clear to you? Yes, for the THIRD time, I refuse to answer YOUR proposal related questions and its your own ridiculous behavior that made it that way. DAMN.
Because, as is obvious to everyone, your idea is broken and you have no answers. And your only remaining option to attempt to salvage some kind of âvictoryâ is to declare that itâs everyone elseâs fault for not being nice enough to you.
So yes, of course your earlier post was complete â â â â â â â â :
Just as expected, because while questions have been asked from the start, youâve continually refused to address them, hence the way this conversation went. You asked questions and direct answers were given, but you didnât extend that same courtesy, just plainly lied.
The suggestion of removing local has been mentioned. It is interesting to note that right now CCP is having a major issue with local, with some in system players not visible in local, and people have lost ships because of the bad intel and CCP is offering to replace ships on a case by case basis.
Obviously CCP thinks local is important. Maybe too important to ever remove. I donât know if its the best answer, but convincing CCP doesnât seem like it would be easy.
The part about me refusing to answer is a lie. I have answered questions, some of them very unproductive and accusatory.
But your case for unanswered questions would be helped by a short list of them. God knows I have had to repeat myself loads of times.
How about this one alone?:
Itâs not like it was just asked once.
So we have established that a program can be made that may be able to to fool CCP servers/operators into thinking players are legitimalely online, so those players can avoid automated responses to a lack of clicks which would take away AFK cloaking.
Does this kill my suggestion of automated responses? I would say about as much as mining has been killed or should be because some people have mining bot programs.
Just because programs exist or can be made is no guarantee they will be used so very much. Part of that is because some players actually have enough intgrity they refuse to use such cheats.
And in this cat and mouse game, ways of detecting cheaters are sure to come just as new ways of cheating will. Its not reason to give up suggestions, changes, fixes and attempts at improvement.
A variation on https://gfycat.com/flickeringbleakabyssiniancat perhaps ?
Iâm (not) sorry to interrupt this cloak hate thread, but hereâs an idea: make a new cloaking module with two modes a) regular cloak and b) camouflage, makes your cloaky ship look like a Hulk. Great for infiltration work, nasty surprises, and connecting with the locals. Make the device switch from regular to camouflage after a certain period of normal cloaking. No more cloaky camping for days on end, but still some emergent gameplay possible.
Yeah, I know, itâs not gonna happen.
2 Likes
Worse, you presented an idea. A representative will be along to abuse you shortly.
As for me I appreciate your idea and thought it was creative and interesting. But oh boy is it going to need some limitations added. And oh yeah, prepare to be scolded for not having already thought of and posted those clearly. A representive will surely get to that after berating you for daring to speak.
2 Likes
@Ridley_Rohan Thx for the heads up. Going to cloak up now and go into hiding, while I still can 
As to limitations, yep, of course. But telling anything more than I did would require ccp to make a serious offer. In other words, Iâm picking up my ball again and go play elsewhere, cloaked or not, who knows. 
2 Likes
I second that and unlike others here, will accept that you most likely did realize that yourself.
You are wiser than I.
Your idea was stupid, his was in jest.
Look around, donât you see that EVERYONE is in agreement except you.
There is NO CHANCE that everyone is right and you, ALONE, are wrong???
Hmmm???
NO CHANCE that you as a new player may know less that those of us who have been playing for more than a decade?
Wake up Donald.
Iâm rather fond of the idea I posted, to be honest, thereâs all sorts of directions devs could take with it. Inspiration was watching logs in a river, or were they crocs ?
But I have other ideas that Iâm more than half seriously considering, and I havenât even had my coffee yet âŚ
The main purpose of afk cloaking is gathering intel (that, and paralyzing non-pvp activity of course). Well, letâs tackle that. After X hours of cloaking in the same system/constellation/whatever the cloaky loses access to local chat for X TIMES Y hours in that same system/constellation/whatever. No local means no free instant intel, spy has to probe. Of course there are counters to that, like rotating pilots. However, depending on how one defines x and y hours the afk cloaker will run out of toons fast, has to move to other systems/constellations/whatever giving time to locals to come up with a counter. A variant would be to simply lose cloak for x times y hours in those systems/whatever, a bit similar to jump fatigue timers but only for those systems/constellations/whatever⌠It would force the cloaky to leave and not come back until expiration of that timer.
That, or some other idea that we can kick around on this thread. Because you know as well as anyone else that once ccp nerfs something into oblivion it will be for at least a decade, in a way that it becomes unplayable, unless there is a change of dev management or dire threats of losing subs and income after implementation.
My old mentor used to say âof any 10 ideas one may have only 1 is truly worth pursuing, and that only if youâre really goodâ. So, instead of hammering ideas into oblivion, itâs important to have more of them in this thread, and use them to build a concept that is closer to a solution.
1 Like
The problem is that this does not mean if you have 10 ideas, one of them will be worth pursuing. 9 misses doesnât mean the 10th shot will be a hit. Thatâs just the gamblerâs fallacy.
All of the ideas proposed here are all garbage.
Ah, binary thinking, I love it. Carry on, Scoots, carry on. Best way to get this thread closed.
1 Like
No, itâs calling out logical fallacies when theyâre presented as legitimate arguments.
Even this is wrong.
The best way to get this thread closed is to have a cultural perception shift in the carebears of EVE Online where they realize that afk cloaky camping is fine since the campers are, you know, AFK and thus pose no threat.
Once the issue is solved, then we donât need this whine thread anymore.
Blind man talking about colors⌠You donât even know how afk cloaky camping is done, interesting.
But whatever. Denying a problem is adding to it. Shouting that every idea is bad doesnât make them bad per se. But you can have your day on the forums, if thatâs what you need, and then, inevitably, get called out on your toxicity. I have little patience with you, you add nothing. You can even have your re-count.
1 Like