Agree! 100%
No rule change regarding cloaking. It is what it is.
2 Likes
Removed a number of posts between 2 capsuleers which were deemed as personal attacks and served no purpose to the AFK cloak discussion. Please keep it civil, you can have constructive discussions without having to attack one anotherâŚ
1.Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Trolling Flaming Ranting Personal Attacks Harassment Doxxing Racism & Discrimination Hate Speech Sexism Spamming Bumping Off-Topic Posting Pyramid Quoting Rumor Mongering New Player Bashing Impersonation Advertising
Cloaking fuel is a terrible idea, if only because it makes living cloaked in hostile space for a longer period of time impossible.
If the cloaking fuel doesnât run out in one day, it doesnât stop an afk cloaky camper. And if it does run out within one day, longer exploration expiditions or active cloaky stalking will get impacted by it.
Iâm against all forms of afk âgameplayâ, but cloak fuel is not a solution.
If CCP is going to do something about afk cloaky camping, which they are (see The EVE Online Ecosystem Outlook:
Address one of the most debated subjects in EVE, AFK cloaky camping, with improved systems to get rid of the frustration of AFK cloaking and its total lack of counterplay without removing the ability for hunters to catch lazy prey, or for spies to be able to scout and monitor systems with strategic value.
They will need to make a list of all valid reasons to use a cloak and make sure those do not get impacted by any change. Cloaks are fine, itâs just that the afk gameplay isnât.
The post may not name anyone specific, but its clearly leveled at anyone who disagrees with him or thinks any changes to AFK cloaking could be good for the game. In other words, its clear he is insisiting only, in his words, Krabbers and Carebears can possibly have an opinion positive about changes to AFK cloaking.
I find his entire post to be highly offensive, an attack, worse than useless, and the opposite of constructive. Yet, despite many deletions, its still there.
I do (or perhaps I should say âdidâ ) want to discuss this in a civil manner. But that just cannot happen when posts like that are allowed even after this thead gets hosed downâŚbecause its NOT civil and it incites a response that is likewise.
Nothing I have said here has had one single drop of selfish personal interest in mind. But to leave that post up makes it seem as if the claim has validity.
No it isnât. And please stop declaring ideas to be âbadâ here in the ideas section. This is a place to build on ideas, NOT dismiss them or damn them. Above I explained how a fuel based idea could work in a way that does not harm the play you mentioned.
Yes thank you, I did miss that post as it lead to the chain of events which I have removed as per the forum rules - but remember it is also a two way street.
Fly safe o/
ISD Bahamut
2 Likes
Yes cloaking fuel is terrible, for reasons I have mentioned above.
You say you have explained how a fuel based idea could work, so Iâve tried to find your post. Is it this following part?
So you say cloaking indefinitely should be possible as long as the cloaky campers click a certain thing once every X minutes?
I think thatâs an even worse idea than the basic cloak fuel idea. The counter to afk gameplay is not ârequire people to click once every x minutesâ.
Adding a 'Iâm still at the keyboardâ click check is the laziest and worst solution.
The idea of fuel would simply change the types of ships used. Instead of a stealth bomber, people would use cloaky haulers and carry enough âcloak fuelâ for weeks.
If this is about making sure someone is not AFK, it should apply to everyone. Even ratters.
Perhaps ratters would be required to complete a reCapcha every 30 minutes. If they fail, everyone in the system gets a notification and can warp to them from their overview to take care of things.
3 Likes
No no. Thatâs what YOU said. I said nothing of the kind.
See, you still are not getting this âwork with an ideaâ thing. You are just trying to shoot it down.
The fuel loading could be an hour. Or more.
The loading process could involve several steps beyond a simple click. For example, it could require a decloak, dragging and dropping fuel from cargo into the cloaking module and then of course, recloaking.
Or something else. If you donât like the above, present something you think is better. It need not be perfect, ljust BETTER, in your opinion. Think of this as your opportunity to present us with an idea instead of a whine. Please. Avail yourself.
7,468 comments into this thread. If you havenât figured it out by now, they arenât going to do anything about AFK cloaky camping, nor should theyâŚ
1 Like
They are going to do something, havenât you read my last link?
1 Like
It doesnât matter what changes they make to cloaky camping, the tears will still not end. Krabs will still dock up and whine whenever there is an unknown in their system. Nullsec Krabs are even more risk averse than a day 1 noob in high sec. If you are that scared to death to undock because of an unknown in your system, then why are you in null sec to begin with? Sounds like you need to go back to the tutorial starter agentsâŚ
1 Like
Then when proven dead wrong instantly pivots to:
I remember back when men had the stones to admit they were wrong, and actually thank the person who proved them wrong.
Now its just pivot, move goal posts, deny and dodge.
And then mutter something about OTHERS being risk averse and scared to death. Imagine sticking your neck out so far on an internet forum that you thank someone for correcting a glaring error. What audacious ballz that would take!
Because it doesnât matter what, if any, changes CCP implements. Nullsec Krabs wonât be happy until it is no longer possible to cloaky camp, periodâŚ
Well its more than just chickens got a stake in this.
And do tell us more about people being chickens when you at least find the guts to give Gerard Amatin a like or two for posting useful information that proved you incorrect. I freaking dare you.
1 Like
I LOVE this. Its not even that I really wanted it or it even matters to my game play. But given all the abuse dished out by so many in the pro-AFK cloaky camping crowd, it freaking serves them right. Its going to be a gut wrenching groan fest all the way up until 1) the changes are made, then a great big dump of relief when they find out its not so bad after all. or 2) nothing changes. Either way, the salt will flow!
But of course, if any changes ARE so bad for them, they will only have themselves to blame wonât they? They had literal YEARS to contribute positively to this idea and this thread, and guide it in a way acceptable to them, but instead they spat on it, crapped on it, cried on it, and stomped on it. Now something might get done completely without them!
THISâŚISâŚHILARIOUS!
1 Like
Iâm not sure who you think is âpro-AFK campingâ; most of us are concentrating on not breaking cloaks for active cloakers and those who have to step AFK in non-camp scenarios. The vast majority of suggestions that focus on hitting the cloak itself are overkill for the problem at hand; an observatory-array style targeted response is far more logical and what those same people have encouraged CCP developing to make null sov a richer experience for everyone involved.
1 Like
My prediction is that changes would be made to the Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor to make it more useful. This can potentially provide counterplay without removing the ability for hunters to catch lazy prey.
Since this may require a small amount of effort on the ratterâs part, they will resist it and continue to beg CCP to protect them in NULL security space.
Fair enough. There has been abuse from all sides. I certainly donât want to diminish your contributions, or even my own. 