Yes, because you can see into the future and people are unable to adapt. Hahahahaha.
Cloaking isn’t going to change without a change to local as well and since we don’t know what these changes will look like, nor how they’re going to affect the player base, you’re just spreading ■■■■■■■■ again.
Adapt or die.
People can adapt to -40 and +40 celsius, but do they want…
Yes, take a ridiculous case to prove your argument. Because it’s either the extreme or nothing at all, absolutely nothing in-between. Are you even trying to think before posting ■■■■■■■■?
From now on i will argue like you.
#adaptordie
I dont care what you say because it is not useful for me and i cant prove you wrong adapt or die you botter, rmter adaptordie 
No, holding sov has plenty of benefits. But those benefits are reserved for strong and competent alliances. The current weak alliances that think “I bought this system from the PvP alliance that conquered it” means “I get to AFK mine/AFK VNI farm/etc with zero risk” and make no effort to fight for “their” system will be screwed, of course, but the sooner those groups die the better.
I’m fine with ratters docking up, but that safety should come at a price. “Dock up if there is even the slightest chance of a threat” as a policy should result in staying in station 23/7 and never making any ISK. If you want to make billions of ISK an hour farming the best PvE content in the game then you should have to face some uncertainty about whether or not a threat exists and work to defend against it. And if you remove AFK cloaking without also removing local you eliminate this uncertainty, leaving only 100% safe farming most of the time with an instant “no PvP” button available the moment a potential threat shows up and a 100% accurate “the PvP is gone, you can farm now” notification the moment they cease to be a threat.
(And note that PvP players already face this uncertainty. They can only maintain 100% safety by withdrawing from the game and sitting idle in a safespot, any attempt to engage a target means facing uncertainty and a significant threat of death. You can not advance your PvP goals without accepting risk and uncertainty.)
Your steadfast refusal to actually deal with the suggestions around the Observatory Array and instead your own strawman continue to reinforce my view that…you really aren’t advocating logging of AFK cloakers for the reason you claim.
Local is gone, but the observatory array would take it’s place. It would not be a powerful as local currently is, but it would alert you to the presence of those in system with you. Further, one of the features would be to let you probe down cloaked ships.
Now…if you can do this and he is scooting from safe-to-safe your problem is resolved. You are now interacting with a player who is ATK. Now you’ll have to be clever to try and catch him. What was that about how the rest of us suck and PvP? Hmmm…maybe you confused us with yourself given your deliberate obtuseness here.
Further, without local and the permanent safety of cloaks AFK cloaking would be dead and gone. Again…your problem is resolved…as anyone you see will be ATK.
I am not saying: delete local and make cloaked ships probable.
You are arguing against that position, but it is not my position.
You have not made a single credible argument against my position, because you are not arguing against my position.
One possibility with the OA is that they could be networked, maybe at the constellation level. This way you would not need intel channels.
And on top of this intel infrastructure would be vulnerable which it currently is not. And consider this…if you are in alliance ABC and you anchor an observatory array…that is your observatory array. Is it going to be giving me information too? Probably not. In short it could actually be a considerable buff for the defenders.
Would making the cloaking action work for an unlimited amount of time, so long as the person hit the remain cloaked button every few minuets to force the cloaked person to remain at the key board and remain active to some extent be an effective balance measure?
Add in random timers for the continuation of the cloak to prevent botting even?
For example
But if you miss the re-calibration cycle, your cloaks go offline for a full 2 minuets from getting thrown out of calibration.
The 15 second recalibration cycle could have an audible chime to warn of the CPU going critical.
After the 2 minuets is up you can return to cloaking again and restart the cloaking cycle until your mission is complete and you get out of Doge, safe log, you fall asleep or go AFK.
However, if the recalibration is not finished properly, EG (You have to actively recalibrate in the recalibration cycles last 15 seconds) you will incur heat damage upon the cloak systems from processor overload.
This theoretically would eliminate AFK cloaks and still let people stay cloaked as long as they want or need, while also giving no more excuse for complaining about AFK cloaking and a fair shake of the stick for people wanting to try and whack the clumsy/inattentive cloak ship pilot.
In addition, it would avoid messing with local, avoid the quagmire of the defenders forcing a person out of cloaking and avoid complaining from people saying
((I want my 100% safe, pay to win, physiological warfare, seal clubbing .50 BMG point blank no scope head shot, cloak and scoot with cyno blop! Don’t take it away from me!))
Though it would not stop the complaints of
((I want my 100% safe, set it and forget it, get rid of local so people can’t tell if I get lazy or go AFK so things are easy because I pay to win and want my physiological warfare and easy seal clubbing .50 BMG point blank no scope head shot, cloak and scoot with cyno blop! Don’t take it away from me!))
Say after a random number of mining cycles, the mining computer must be re-calibrated to keep mining functions in operation.
For example
Targeted asteroid, engage mining laser, after random number of cycles (we will say 3 this time) a re-calibration alert is sounded, the re-calibration must be done in the last 15 seconds or whole mining cycle and yield is lost and mining laser is disengaged and mining systems go offline for 2 minuets because of mining computer falling out of calibration and will take 2 minuets for re-calibration to compleat before mining operations can resume.
However, should you fail to hit the recalibration cycle in the last 15 seconds of the 2 minuet recalibration, your mining laser/strip miner will suffer heat damage from processor overload and every 15 seconds will incur more heat damage until destroyed.
Preceded by an audible chime to warn of the CPU going critical at the 15 second mark.
Meaning inattentive/AFK miners will get nothing but damaged equipment, lost profits and little to no ore.
To be even more devious, make the over heating CPU chime the same as the ore hold full chime. 
Which theoretically should increase the price of ore and minerals as it would require attention to harvest valuable ore and cause a shift in ore and mineral prices. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. But over all miners would be able to charge more for ore as it would be more difficult to get than just targeting a rock and pushing one button until the rock is gone.
This is just a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less.
I could be wrong and completely off the mark too, ya know. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t see happy pro-afk-cloak pilots. Shouldn’t you celebrate the happiest moment of your life?
Busy killing stuff. No time to post.
While it’s not a large enough sample to be representative… I ratted for a couple hours last night in a VNI. I saw several unidentified ships warp through the system (no idea if they were hostile or not). Nobody seemed to notice me. 0 warp ins. I generally get 1-2 with local being active.
Don’t know if that was just chance… or if it suggests that the lack of local also hurts hunters when it comes to finding targets.
It would change hunting for sure.
Rather than just entering system and looking at local before moving on, you’d probably be using probes and d-scan a lot more.
Big groups/fleets would be easy to spot. Smaller groups and solo would be harder to spot.
It’s was reasoned long ago that removing local helps small/mobile groups over big groups. Big groups can cover more ground at once, but that still requires splitting up.
And thats for both hunting and being hunted.
the flip side is that big groups likely have the ability to have many more “eyes” to try to find targets/threats.
With local… both the 3 man wolfpack and 3000 man alliance that are present in system have the same ability to tell who’s present.
Without local… having more eyes in the system (and the surrounding systems) would likely give you a lot more intel about where people are.
Now you did it. Poor Mike. 
This chat change may turn out to be good first step to wean nullbears off their free and perfect local. I think no matter how good Amazon’s cloud hosting is, there are going to be hiccups from time-to-time where it breaks or lags or otherwise isn’t quite as perfect as it was when local chat ran on TQ. Even if this happens rarely, it is going to result in lost ships that I doubt CCP is going to want to replace by people trying to use chat as an intel tool and whining it wasn’t good enough.
Obviously local is going to get much more reliable than it has been for the last 24h, but we’ll have to see how reliable it actually gets, and while I am sure it will get pretty good, it won’t ever be as perfect as it was before. As a result a non-zero number of ships are going to explode because of this and culturally nullbears will begin to accept that they are not entitled to as much safety as they currently enjoy. This should make it easier, if and when Observatory Arrays come, to propose changes or even a replacement to local chat.
Wut? @Black_Pedro that sounds like some changes are coming…any links to share?
No no, I just am referring the current unreliability of local as a result of this… problematic patch they are still trying to straighten out. You have not noticed that your chat channels, including local, are still completely unreliable?
The moved all chat functionality off TQ and into the cloud as outlined here:
And I was just remarking that matter how smooth they get it working, it will never be as reliable as when it was running on the same server as the rest of the game.
Ahhh. Thanks for that. Yeah I knew they were having issues, didn’t know that they had moved chat channels off TQ.
I hate the idea of putting any data into a ‘cloud’ that someone else manages and I have no control over. But then again I’m a DBA, so someone else touching my data feels like assault 