And Cloaking was designed the way it works too along with no log-off, no state indicators in Corp, Fleet, Local or Constellation chat to indicate DND, AFK, BIO, DOA and that is the balance it's an open unknown state game with no "end game" where the people in system are as active or as inactive as you think they are and so you should be as prepared as you think they are active.

I literally cannot understand your post. I do not understand what you are trying to ask, or what point you are trying to make.

As for insulting him and telling him to read... I believe his response is due to the fact he DID read it. Lucas said Local was designed to work the way it currently does, and Maximus rightly pointed out that Cloaking was also designed to work the way it currently does, and CCP were obviously fully aware when they designed it that people wouldn't automatically log off because they hadn't implemented that.

As for your suggestion for an "auto-logoff"... please address the following points:
a) Why is it needed
b) How is balance maintained? If every none-threat is mechanically removed from the game automatically, it means active players cannot ever pretend to be inactive, they cannot mask what they are doing. There presence would by definition mean they are actively taking part in the game. This is not balanced. This is a sharp reduction in the capabilities of ACTIVE players, and shrinks the sandbox.

It is a bad idea.

I disagree with the assertion that afk players "gain advantages" over active players. What advantage is an AFK player gaining when he isn't able to do anything at all? If your answer is "the residents dock up in fear" well then the way to stop him gaining that advantage is to ... not dock up in fear.

As for the initial design vs current uses... well I've got a bit of a shocker for you: Local was designed as a chat channel, not as a method to allow carebears in nullsec perfect safety, or to allow them to escape before an adversary has finished transitioning into system.

However, due to the low population in any given nullsec system, and due to more recent changes (the coloured standings that are visible in the list) it is now being used that way.

As a result of local being misused in this way, cloaks started being misused to counter it. You cannot fix one without fixing the other.

So I sit on my perch above a gate and watch, waiting for a particular person to go through who's been reported on my Alliance Intel channel that he may appear in an Etana (a very rare ship in EVE). I'm sat there like quite a few other scouts in my alliance for hours now and he's not arrived. Meanwhile we're talking on TS about who is jumping through and where but I'm not moving in game, I'm watching.

You on the other hand don't know whether I'm AFK and nor does the system. I'm at my keyboard ready to react should I see my target...how is that not "actively playing"?

Why should I be made to click into my client though? This is my point. You want to dictate that I click in my client to stop be being AFK while if I miss it by 1 second I'm logged out and you can go about your business not fearing the person in Local who may or may not be AFK because he's been removed.

They don't have this problem in Low Sec or High Sec because you know what...they don't use Local as an intel channel. You are obviously too carebear to be in Null and should get your arse back to High Sec and learn that Local isn't required, situational awareness, active intelligence gathering and appropriate fittings are.

Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.

Wait, what?

NightmareX, you may feel obliged to speak for "threatened" players interested in PvE, but you do not speak for all of them by far.

And a big wall of text nonsense....................

Well, I'm sorry, but if you are going to nerf active cloakers and do nothing about the free benefits local provides...then yes, its is unbalanced.

I know english is not your primary language, but Christ, stop taking my comments out of context and responding to them like this. It is dishonest and indicates low intellectual ability. Instead of taking on my full argument you have to take on a bastardized subset of it, refute and fell superior.

Except the possibility that they might not be known as active.

While some claim that no pilot ever falls for that trick, they cannot help but make the claim supporting the idea that they are then being blocked by the same pilot as a result.
Only by risking activity does a PvE pilot overcome this block, but by so doing, exposes them to the cloaked pilot.
Are they AFK or not?

This is not a resolved issue, as many cloak using pilots claim this tactic works.
If both are to be believed, the pilots who they engaged are not posting here.

Adding a timer would resolve the issue, undeniably, but in the favor of the PvE pilots. Any solution that favors one side is not balanced.

Line by line, with logic introduced:.......

Useless wall of text

And that's the point.

They are indeed not affecting the game. They are doing nothing. At all.

Bunk.

Complete and utter bunk.

When somebody comes up with a bad side effect, then I'll consider it. Your entire post is a complete ad hominem by the way. I point out that this complaint about it destroying fleet combat is wildly exaggerated if not outright nonsense.

Right now, in the game as is, scouts are used in staging systems. Scouts are used along anticipated routes. D-scan will still work and there are ways players can take the information from D-scan and make them easily usable by FCs, even better than local, in fact.

Yes, if it is a station system the defenders could all dock up and try to hide. However, that also puts the defender at a distinct disadvantage, especially if their intel infrastructure is knocked out. They'd be left with using D-scan as well. And if they are even a bit late undocking they could find themselves undocking into a waiting fleet at its optimals with their tanks running, scripted modules active and ready to lock up ships as they undock and try to turn on their tanks. Logistics might also be particularly vulnerable as well since they'd have to undock and lock each other up while hostile logistics could already be up and running.

Could they have a fleet of 2,000 in that station? Sure. But so what? With the current mechanics if the other side had 2,000 guys ready to go chances are the other side isn't even going to engage. And I doubt with a new intel mechanic people are always going to assume, "The other side has 2,000 guys." And as I noted they'll be working to try and determine the other sides fleet size and strength.

Oh, and if 2,000 guys start undocking, the fleet in system will have some time to bail, especially with some good bubbling of the undock. Which is what they'd do with the current mechanic.

So, I find Lucas' argument totally facile and flacid, like an over cooked rice noodle.

Ahhh, and appeal to authority with nothing to back it up. Your problem here is that EVE has changed alot since 2004 and it has survived just fine. So, again, I find this argument completely lacking in merit since it is basically you saying, "I've been in game longer, shut up noob."

TL;DR: I've been playing longer than you, so shut up.

What crucial flaws, all you've done is ramble on about how awesome you are and everyone else is ****.

Oh...Baracuda, is that you?

I haven't read all the 100's of pages, but I think what people seem to be missing is that AFK cloakers generate revenue for CCP, so why would they change it?
I myself can't see why you would spend $15 a month to try deny a group of null bears the ability to make isk, which by the way they will still do via other methods, I made over 3 bil profit in null last month in a system that has 2 afk campers from methods other than ratting , and that was without even trying.
Its like paying gym membership and not using it.

if CCP had to stop all griefer activities they would loose more than a little money. There are many many, scamers, gankers, miner bumpers, incursion site campers, afk campers, etc in EVE.

There IS a chance for harder ones If there isn't any chance of hard kills, and there isn't a chance of easy kills, then surely there would be no killls. But there aren't, there's hundreds of kills daily. Just because all types of kill are outside of your personal level of skill doesn't mean they don't exist.

Why? Why when a perfect PVE pilot and a Perfect PVP pilot go head to head, should the PVP pilot win? The PVE pilot has no chance of killing the PVP pilot, since you can't fit for both PVE and PVP.
You see the problem is you still refuse to see a PVE pilot evading as a draw, you see it as a win for the PVE pilot. But it's not. They don't get to do their activity. The PVE pilot would only win if the PVP pilot was defeated.

You see, the "chance" you are talking about ALREADY EXISTS. You want to make that gap so wide, that all pilots can use that "chance", but all that means is the best PVP pilots will smash the ever living **** out of PVE pilots on a daily basis.

Really?
I thought it was to advertise to CCP that a majority of the playerbase has an issue with AFK cloakers. Thanks for that by the way Teckos. Now that CCP have confirmed they do have it in mind, a lot of us are considerably happier.

Effort is not meaningless though. There exists effort on both sides as is, regardless of whether you choose to accept it. What you want to do is amplify the effect of solo PVP by shitting on PVE.
I have to ask this. If PVE players should have to use "group effort" as you claim, why do you argue for a change which makes Solo PVP easier? Surely PVP should also be group effort? So surely a cloak device should only work if you have mates (who cannot participate in the PVP) powering it? Thats what you want for PVE. You want to force PVE pilots to need to have PVP pilots helping them, so I would have expected, for fairness, your idea to have the same.

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. It's because you don;t give a **** about balance, what you want is an easy way to gank people.

The point you keep missing out, is the reason why they AFK.

So what are you going to do when this doesn't stop people from sitting in your space in cloaked ships.

What about people not even logged in?

I'm getting benefits right now, and I'm not logged in. Seems to be, that being AFK in space and cloaked is not such a horrible thing by comparison.

Oh but I am doing something in Eve. My PI planets are humming along, I'm not logged in, and if you had facilities on the same planet I'd be adversely impacting you too.

How about people with sales orders, definitely having an impact as well...and often not logged in. And if they were and AFK it wouldn't change a damn thing either.

Seems to me if players can accrue benefits and not be logged in, being AFK is not such a big deal...especially when the benefits that accrue to AFK players are dubious at best.

My reply is simple. If I'm not AFK I should not have to prove I'm not AFK so you can get a benefit you don't deserve or earn. Especially if I am not AFK on the other side of the galaxy and waiting to do something.

Or maybe we should come up with a way for everyone who PvEs in the game to prove they aren't a bot. All of them. Mining, PI, hauling, ratting, anything you do to make isk, prove you aren't a bot, put in a captcha or get logged. Every 15 minutes. And irrespective of what you are doing in game.

Same thing with AFK cloaking. I have to pay, I have to log in to set it up (well if I did it) and activate the cloak. Far more than you and skill training.

To be perfectly clear on this cause and effect thingy....

The AFK cloaker needs three things to successfully AFK cloak and disrupt a system.

1. The desire to AFK cloak.
2. A cloaking device fitted to the ship to be used.
3. Local.

Without all three of these AFK cloaking cannot happen. We can't do much about 1. Nobody who complains about AFK cloaking wants to touch 3. For those complaining about AFK cloaking and things Something Needs To Be DoneGäó this leaves just 2, messing with the cloaking device.

The thing is cloaking devices are used for game play other than just AFK cloaking. Anything that nerfs cloaks also, by definition, nerfs those types of game play. I don't think it is reasonable to nerf those types of game play simply to convey a benefit to those who are doing PvE. The people complaining about AFK cloaking never ever make a case as to why they should get this benefit at the expense of active cloakers.

A log off timer is like trying use a hammer when you need s tool with more subtlety. Sure it is not that big a deal for any single pilot, but I contend that pilots who pay the same subscription fee as the PvE pilots who are complaining should not have to jump through additional hoops when they are indeed not AFK. Just as it would not be a big deal for everybody in the U.S. to send me $0.01 each year. They could all afford it and the impact on their lives is minimal. But do I really deserve that income transfer of $3.25 million? Rent seeking, which is what most who are complaining about AFK cloaking are doing, is generally a bad thing.

So, why should PvE pilots get this kind of a benefit? Why should active cloakers get their game nerfed? Why should people who log in but happen to be doing something that does not require lots of input to the client get their game nerfed. Either make the case for why PvE pilots in null should get such a benefit at the expense of others or find a solution that does not impose that expense.

What a load of semantic bravo sierra. If the Eve client is going to determine if I'm AFK or not, then it is the same as having me prove it.

Because uncertainty and risk are fundamental aspects of this game. For the same reason we don't have PvP free zones.

I don't know why you think this is some sort of secret, I've been saying all along that the point of AFK cloaking is to increase uncertainty...which is what you are saying, you just use the word fear instead. But yeah, the one aspect of AFK cloaking is to cause PvE pilots to do something other than they would normally be doing.

Sure they are comparable. You said you pay for you account. So do I. Why should I have to jump through extra hoops when you don't have too? You also say you have to keep your skill queue up-to-date, so the AFK cloaker has to activate the cloaking module...about the same amount of effort really, click the mouse a few times.

What benefit? Denying others benefits is not much of a benefit.

What benefits? Please explain the benefits that accrue to an AFK pilot.

And there we have it...you want Eve to be more like WoW.

So PI, Skill training, Manufacturing/research jobs, moon harvesters, and corp/alliance members (they do things to help the corp/alliance thus benefiting you even if you aren't on) need to be removed.

Your argument is just bad, pretending to be AFK as a form of intel denial/mind games is a legitimate strategy and is not exclusive to vessels using cloaking devices.

Biomass yourself.

Everyone can AFK cloak too...so how is this a valid objection? And his point is a good one. My Alliance mates often do things when I'm AFK or not even logged in that provide me with a benefit. If the Euro guys go out and save a tower or POCO and so forth, then that helps me. It helps us keep our sov where I do my PvE. I maybe logged off, AFK or I might be doing something to help the Euro guys in US TZ.

This kind of thing is actually a feature of MMOs, not a bug.

What is automated and what is done manually? Setting up your skill queue and keeping it going is not automated so it is not entirely automated. Nor is PI, market trading, or even POS maintenance. All these things work while the player(s) is(are) offline, but they also take manual work.

So I can AFK cloak in a system and after the initial set up the game/client takes over...much like PI, market trading, moon mining, labs/research, manufacturing, and so forth.

I think you got it backwards. He doesn't like WoW...but apparently you do.

You said "any benefit whatsoever".

And the fact that you actually tried to use WOW as an example of why you idea is a good one should tell you you've made a mistake.


Lastly; taking bets on if this got implemented, how long would it take for nightmare to come crying about needing a way to probe down cloaked vessels because they aren't as AFK as he thought they were.

As has been pointed out, you said "no benefit whatsoever". Now you want to change the criteria when somebody comes along and points out the problems? When exactly will you stop moving the goal posts?

You keep saying benefits, but you haven't really described them.

Then why would you want to make Eve more like WoW? Using WoW mechanics does precisely that.

How does an automatic AFK flag not achieve the same thing?

They get free intel with no effort.

This would actually muck things up in wormholes, you no longer need to watch a POS to see if the inhabitants leave it, just add the guys in it to your watchlist and warp out once any of them no longer show as AFK.

You're basically coming in 160 pages into a thread and screaming "I HATE LOCAL AND WANT TO BE UBER" then throwing personal attacks at me.
Go back to your bridge.

Again, why nerf players other than the AFK cloaker? Come up with a solution that targets only them....and nobody else.

I know, its not easy is it?

I'm not ignoring the ideas, I just thing that nerfing the play of people who are not AFK or who use cloaks (depending on the flavor of nerf you prefer to AFK cloaking) is not acceptable. If you have a method that also has a high level of false positives it is generally a bad method.

See you can't discuss the solution I prefer.

Cloaking doesn't need a counter. Here's why:

CLOAKING IS ITS OWN COUNTER.

The instant you activate your cloak, you can't do anything except move around - and even then you can't get too close to anything.

You cannot use any modules. You cannot change or reload ammo. You cannot jettison anything or pick anything up. You simply cannot do anything except move around - and if you do come too close to something, first you have to get away from whatever it is and then you've still got a recloaking delay of at least 5 seconds.

So yes. Cloaking is its own counter. You are rendered completely impotent while you're cloaked and as you're not any threat of any kind at all there's no need for anyone else to do anything about you.

Why do you need a counter to the surprise? Why are you even surprised? You're in nullsec. You shouldn't be surprised if you're practicing proper vigilance.

Don't try to screw everyone else in the name of promoting, protecting and increasing your own selfish and worthless laziness. If you can't handle nullsec, then get out of it.

I don't even use cloaking for PvP purposes and I still think you've been drinking too much carebear urine.

You have a counter to defend you. It's called being alert. Why do you need the game to wrap you and your ship in soft cuddly bubble wrap to protect you from every possible danger?

You think nerfing cloaks is fine as it lets you be careless in nullsec without any risk of losses.

Unless you're planning to fight, if someone else is in Local you should be aligned. Period. There's no discussion to be had on the matter. The instant you see someone decloak you warp away. Planet, station, safe, whatever. You have the free intel in Local telling you someone is around. Either they're hunting you or they're not, and since it's nullsec you can assume they're hunting you. You should be prepared to escape at a moment's notice and if you aren't then you deserve to die for it.

Let me say that again.

You should be prepared to escape at a moment's notice and if you aren't then you deserve to die for it.

If you can't handle this, if you think it's wrong or unfair or if you think you're entitled to safety then null is not the place for you.

No, I don't.

You knew the risks. When you moved to nullsec, you accepted them. Now you want them removed so you can play lazy carebear highsec land.

No.

It's not that I support AFK gaming. It's that I oppose active players having to deal with extra nonsense because a few weak-willed people get scared easily and I especially oppose people thinking they're entitled to anything approaching perfect safety in nullsec.

It doesn't matter if someone might be AFK. You should be treating everyone in Local as if they aren't AFK. If you have a problem with "working your ass off" as you so crudely put it, then you should leave nullsec because it's not for you.

Right now, if this happens to you...you weren't alert--i.e. local would warn you a hostile is in system with you.

And if the hostile is already there...bring your friends early on. Or put a huge tank and cyno on that thing and when they engage you'll last longer and your friends will have time to counter drop.

Why should you know it? Why are you entitled to know it - or anything at all?

The only way to know if you're active is by being active too. Someone who's AFK doesn't know anything about you.

Because handing out things for free is not good, this is what those who want an AFK tag are advocating. Free intel, intel they don't have to work for.

If the guy with a cloak is no longer AFK and finds out you are active: he worked for it. He found you on d-scan, wapred to your location, etc.

You want it handed to you by the client after doing...nothing to really earn it.

The pilot is AFK...can't deactivate the cloaking device. Can't lock. Can't shoot.

[The only free intel I get is from local...which you get too. Balance. If I'm AFK I don't even get that. To get more, I have to actually, you know, do something in game--i.e. not be AFK.

Doesn't matter, it rebuts Andy's claim that an AFK cloaker can close in on a target while cloaked, deactivate the cloak, target and scram the target, and then light a cyno.

None of that can happen while the pilot is AFK. Ever. It is, literally, and impossible sequence of events.

So Andy's proposal for AFK dockers to undock with no session timer anywhere in system is fine...so long as the players that can take advantage of it are AFK--i.e. can never ever do it.

Why should you get something for free that provides you with a benefit? If you want that benefit work for it.

This is why I suggest a nerf to cloaks and change to intel/local which will try to preserve the current balance.

You, you just want a freebie and to give up nothing in exchange. That is not balanced.

And yeah, once that AFK timer kicks in, you just got something for free. What did you do to earn it? Wait? How long? 15 minutes? Bravo sierra. How about 8 hours. After 8 hours of inactivity the tag kicks in. Oh...you didn't get to rat at all? Well....now it cost you something didn't it? Better luck next time.

What a load of horse crap.

So, PI and datacores are free....

If you mine minerals for building, those are free too?

Jesus....the economically illterate are out in force today.

Round and round we go, where we'll stop nobody knows.

Look, the fact is Andy's list had a lot of stuff that was not, in fact, "free". It was horse crap to include them.

Does CCP provide some in game infrastructure and objects (e.g. rookie ships) for free? Yes. But providing basic infrastructure for people to be able to actually play the game is one thing. To provide more and more free stuff that provides a benefit to given class of players...who have most likely been in game awhile is Bravo Sierra. It is classic rent seeking--i.e. grabbing after unearned benefits at the expense of other players.

Does the overview, which CCP provides, impose a cost to any given group of players and at the same time convey a benefit to a different group? If it does, make the case, or STFU. It was a stupid thing to bring up.

And really, you dock at a station in your pod where you have no ships and get a free rookie ship...that is such a huge unbalancing benefit I'm sure CCP will nerf that very, very soon. In fact, I'm sure any day now they'll call it an exploit.

NightmareX, you've been utterly defeated and your replies show it. You may as well stop now.

We see the problem dude. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

We just don't think that established players in null sec should get any kind of a buff to their play style. If you want to get rid of AFK cloaking, then fine. Its boring game play. But if you remove it alone and in the process nerf other valid types of non-AFK play that is just nonsense. You should not get a benefit at the expense of other players who aren't even causing your problems.

If a guy needs to sit in a WH for a couple hours and not do much of anything, he shouldn't have be bothered clicking a pop-up or some other nonsense so that you can have additional security while ratting in null.

And the issue of risk v. rewards is a valid topic in this discussion. If you are going to reduce the risk, then it is only fair to reduce the rewards too. So if you do find a way to get rid of just AFK cloaking and not impose a burden on any other players, then null sec incomes to individual pilots need to get nerfed too, IMO.

Do I want that? Not really as I earn income in null too. But from a game balance stand point of view it is a reasonable position.

Thanks for the bump tho' NightmareX! Thanks for helping to keep this topic on the front page!

Your whole reply reeks of "I have nothing else left to say and all my points have been invalidated, so let's try distraction and stalling until someone else can come defend me!"

Are you seriously to the point of making the sort of arguments that are typically reserved for the average five-year-old?

"It's not fair! Everything should have to be fair!"

"Your idea is stupider than mine, so shut up!"

"I know more than you because I'm older so that makes me right and you're wrong!"

At least you've made one thing clear. All you want is to have a game where you can enjoy YOUR time and gives a damn about how others might enjoy the game.


Seriously, you really should just stop now.

There's plenty of effort involved. You are occupying a whole character with a task. You cannot be in two different places at the same time with the same character. Instead of being lazy perhaps you should devise a way to deal with cloaked ships. Crying on the forum about it does nothing to change it.

But that detains the character of any other use.

Well if said character is in your system AFK cloaking, he isn't anywhere else is he? Basic economics, every time you "get" something you naturally have to "give up" something else.

Pretty amazed you are complaining about cloaky ships being dangerous. Set a few traps and they'll start changing their tune pretty fast. See that's the problem with people, they look for mechanics to help them "win" the game instead of devising their strategies with dealing with a very balanced concept.

Of course it isn't easy. If the game was suppose to be easy you wouldn't be here complaining. Instead this is a difficult game where you have to use your mind a bit harder than you seem to have. Simple as that.

Have you ever actually tried to organize and follow through a covert ops campaign to call it easy?

No one afk has ever lit a cyno...fact.

If you choose to believe AFK players can light cynos, it starts to explain your irrational concerns...

One: Comparing EVE to WoW insults many EVE players. It suggests you view them as being no better than these theme park dwelling, orc humping, elf cybering wannabees... Not a good start to an argument where you hope to win minds over to your views.

Two: Deciding that activity can be measured in keystrokes per hour, (requiring a minimum over a period of time to be considered active), is amazingly short sighted.
You have been provided with ample opportunities to understand that EVE is more complex than WoW, so expecting the limiting mechanics that work in WoW to function in EVE is equally short sighted.
Put simply, it is an accepted tactic that EVE players can and do play the game passively at times, either not touching the controls, or even by just listening for the audio cues to alert them to important opportunities...

We have no need to subscribe to your limited views regarding what is valid play, but you seem bent on trying to force them on others. The idea behind a timer like this disregards all other play styles except those conveniently able to meet them.

It dumbs down EVE, bringing it closer to WoW, which seems to be what you want.

That makes it bad for EVE.

Let me add to this, those of us who either want to keep AFK cloaking, or want to fix it via local/intel changes get this point.

I have have written that an AFK cloaker, or even any cloaker in a system increases the level of uncertainty for those who want to PvE in that system. Hence, I get this point. I get it very well.

My response to this is the following:

How do you know this is not precisely what CCP has intended and consider reasonable. They have had over half a decade to patch AFK cloaking out via any one of the dubious ideas listed on the first page of this thread. These threads have popped up regularly since cloaks were first put in the game. If we assume 1/week there are probably over 200 such threads on this issue...and they invariable use the same proposals over and over.

In fact, it is quite likely that right now with the current mechanics CCP sees things with local, cloaks, and cynos as balanced. Maybe not in an optimal fashion, but balanced and as such it is low on their list of priorities to change.

One of CCP's marketing strategies about Eve Online is that it is a harsh uncaring universe, not for the timid or feint of heart. If you play it you will face the possibility of very unpleasant outcomes unlike most other MMOs (e.g. if you lose that 2 billion isk ship...its gone, not like in WoW where every time you die you get all your stuff back). Removing uncertainty from the game and changing the risk/reward ratio in favor or less risk and more reward goes counter to that marketing strategy.

Come, play Eve Online, it used to be a harsh and uncaring universe, but now it is the cuddlier version.

Don't think that is such a great idea.

No, not every player. That is one strategy you can follow, but not everyone does.

You are arguing that everyone has to take the most risk averse approach to the problem. Doing that is part of what makes AFK cloaking so successful/desirable.

Also, it is not unfair play. Eve is not about always having things be "equal" or "fair" in the sense that if I can catch a dude with 9 friends and kill him fast...so be it. Gate camps, for example, are "unfair" by many other MMO players' standards. Rancer and Tama are giant balls of "unfariness" compared to many other MMOs. In Eve it is no big deal, and, IMO, many of use like it that way.

Adding an AFK timer would not be that hard.

Changing local/intel...that would be hard to do it in a balanced way.

So one thing is not like the other, writing posts as if they are indicates either a fundamental lack of understanding of the two mechanics, dishonesty, or...both.

I'll let you pick which of the three apply.

Yes it does change game play. If you are a miner in high sec it would make you a more desirable target for suicide ganking in high sec. Why should high sec suicide ganking get a buff?

Again, if it applies simply for not clicking on the client frequently enough, not supported. No need to nerf other people's game play to give you something for nothing.

Please train reading comprehension to level 1.

When I said that being extremely risk averse is what makes AFK cloaking successful/desireable I did not mean that it is good game play, but that from the standpoint of those who do AFK cloak the extreme response is part of why they do it. To deny people in game resources.

Sure, I have never denied this. I have never implied the opposite. In fact, if I did explicitly endorse this, it might be a violation here on the forums as it could be seen as supporting botting. But saying, "I don't have to look at my screen every second, or even for minutes at a time" is not the same as saying, "I support AFK play."



I have provided no excuses, but reasons why I think an AFK flag/auto log timer is not a good idea. I should not be required to do something in game so you can get a benefit even though my in game activities have virtually no impact on you. Such a requirement is nonsense.

I don't AFK cloak. Whoops there goes your premise.

Rest of the post: now gibberish without its premise.

Thanks for playing.

Going to open a petiton:

Subject: Changing NIghtmareX's in game name to StrawmanX....

Considering you haven't made a valid argument in the last 10 posts, that is an excellent display of ironic posting...and done unironically as well.

Well done.

NighmareX replying to you with anything substantive is a waste. You continually write that I want to do things I have explicitly denied. You either willfully or via poor reading comprehension distort what I have written.

But go ahead and keep bumping the thread. I like keeping it on the front page. Thanks for that, at least.

Thanks for the bump.

Answered... And I've said it before. What reason is there for any change, other than it improves the game all round. In this case, it removes the ability of players who have no desire to create gameplay, only to remove it. It encourages all players to actively play the game.

I am saying the changes you seek are not necessary, the game is balanced to be exactly the way it is.

Changing a game in your favor alone is not an improvement in balance, unless you are arguing the game is currently unbalanced and that it has been that way for more than 5 years and that the CCP Devs know this and are just bad at their jobs.

Are you making that argument?

What benefits does the game give to AFK players, exactly?

Don't deflect the question or twist it. Just answer it in a straightforward fashion.

Myself, and I daresay Teckos, are not arguing for a change in balance.

I told you "don't deflect the question or twist it" and you just did both.

Now answer me: What benefits does the game give to AFK players?

Don't strawman me this time either.

I didn't answer your question because I quite frankly do not give a damn about it. I'm interested in knowing what benefits the game gives to someone who is AFK, a question which you still have not answered.

Now stop with the useless rhetoric, horrible logical fallacies and transparent stalling tactics. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Unless, of course, you can't.

No, I couldn't be bothered to answer your question because you haven't yet been bothered to answer mine. All you've done is stall and try to distract.

So, which is true, out of the following two options possible?

A: The game is not balanced, the devs have known of this issue for years and left it like this. The AFK timer will fix this problem.

B: The game is balanced, but the devs will introduce this AFK timer because they will decide to shift the balance point in favor of those negatively affected by AFK behavior.

You are also not the person I was asking, but thank you for whiteknighting on NightmareX's behalf.

"Don't be so mad"? You're trolling now?

Also, you have nothing. Don't even try to argue otherwise, you know very well that it's true.

The only one who's answered my question (although not very well) is Andy, who asserts that AFK people can control things somehow.

Except that AFK people don't control anything. They're AFK.

No, AFK people don't stop you from ratting. Your fear does that.

I'll say it. You can't compare two completely dissimilar games and expect anyone to take you seriously.

There. Now you can have your indignation and your defiant "you can't tell me what to do" rage-party.

NightmareX, do you actually have anything useful of your own to say or are you going to just ride everyone else's coattails?

Says the guy who wants Eve to be more like WoW.

Sure you can make such comparisons, but such comparisons may also be just downright dumb.

For example, you approach would not work in World of Tanks. There you'd need a method not to boot AFK players, but assure that they don't go AFK since any player that goes AFK during a battle automatically gimps his team. And a player AFKing in his garage is not an issue at all.

Considering I quoted it, yes I read it.

Your system wont work in World of Tanks. It will do nothing to help that game be "better".

And I'm saying it wont make the game better. Hence such a comparison is just dumb. It is like putting lipstick on a pig...it accomplishes nothing. So why waste Dev time doing it.

See...like I said, you can compare them, but sometimes such comparisons are dumb.

Damn it was hard getting an answer out of you.

No, actually you didn't. You went on to repeat yet again why you think an AFK timer would be awesome, but didn't answer Nikk's question.

But whatever, clearly you think the situation is A.

Further question: Why do you play a game where the Dev's leave things unbalanced for so long and with no sign they'll ever fix it in your favor?

What he said, every ice miner is now AFK.

Pretty much the stupidest requirement: pressing a button every 5 minutes to simply satisfy some random guy on the forums definition of what it means to be AFK.

Just going in and out of AFK status just to watch the rage in local and forums.

"This douche bag keeps going AFK and then not-AFK and I can't rat!!!!!"

Well, I'm updataing the client ATM, but last I checked it took just over 34 minutes for my Mackinaw's ore hold to fill up with ice. Given I could fill it off of one ice asteroid, that means I'd be "AFK" by most people's definition in this thread.

Do you even play the game?

Or maybe I should take a page out of yours and Lucas' book and ask if you are on drugs, an idiot, or stupid or a moron.

Why should you be the one to decide I'm AFK if I don't click around in my client in that 34 minutes? Why should I have to stare at my screen the entire time? If I'm in high sec, why can't I wander off to the kitchen to grab a drink without being penalized so you can get a benefit.

Really...when was the last time you logged in?

Tell me again how brilliant you are at this game.

Edit: 36 minutes to get the ore bay filled fully.

Why should all Ice miners be considered AFK if they don't sit and doodle around in their clients ever 30 minutes.

You really don't play do you.

Look I have 2 types of modules on my Mack you boob. Tank and harvesters. I deactivate my harvesters then it will take even longer to fill the cargo.

I deactivate my tank modules I gimp my tank...why should I have to do that to satisfy your idiotic arbitrary definition.

Why not an hour? Or 57 minutes.

What if I'm using cap or crossing gates. Every autopiloting freigher is now AFK and should be marked as such to make it even easier for suicide gankers?

That will make the game better? Why does suicide ganking of freighters need a buff?

Please, share more of your unbelievable genius with rest of us.

Which is also why the proposed auto-log and AFK flag solutions are also bad.

Might suggest an english dictionary.

Then might I suggest looking up the word sarcasm.

It isn't just a word between sack and **** in the dictionary.

I was responding to NightmareX who has been extremely nasty in this thread. Constantly distorting what others write, calling them names and so forth. Frankly, ISD should give NightmareX a posting time out, but that is just my opinion.

And you have to keep the context of that comment in mind...it was in reference to semi-AFK mining which is how most high sec miners mine, IMO. And yes, in a way you had a point regarding skills, but probably don't realize it helps MY ARGUMENT against NightmareX:

A newer player just getting into an exhumer might have bad skills and can't (yet) get below the 30 minute criteria for getting an AFK tag and wapred off/logged off. Such an occurrence is a buff to older players and a nerf to newer/less skilled players. I don't see how that is in any way a good thing.

And lastly it isn't a couple of extra K in tank, it is not quite double the tank (and with overheating shield modules more that 2x the tank) of a Mack with a DCU II.

Ahh so you're not interested in fixing the cause, you just want cloaks nerfed. OK I understand now. Thanks.

No.

Actually, we do have a CCP Dev on record as preferring local be just a chat channel and intel be decoupled and its own mechanic. In this very thread even.

You misunderstand.

The so-called AFK problem has been ignored for years too.

It is also being solved by this change.

Players wanting to target PvE assets won't need to be relying on cloaked ships anymore.
They can fly fast little ships, able to land on a target before anyone knew they were close enough.

With local no longer meeting their defense needs for intel, they won't care what happens to it.
It's not some guy you see in local you need to worry about anymore, it's that guy in the next system, who can gate over and be on grid with you before you can react.

The cyno is no longer the means to an end, using hot dropping. They can bypass local intel using sheer speed.
Because of this, the threat associated with an AFK cloaked pilot will diminish, since genuine threats will have easier access thanks to those speedsters.

Who said CCP needs to change local, now that they can simply make it irrelevant to intel gathering?

Selective reading?
You certainly only quoted a selected part of what I said.

As to adding new intel tools, there is no need for this either.
One can simply scan or probe, and locate the interceptor.

If your buddy in the next system can't be bothered to let you know of an imminent threat, that is between the two of you, CCP put in place reliable chat channels, as well as many out of game voice coms being available.

No need for a change exists.

23.5/7 Scan online?

That's a strange conclusion to come to, especially considering that the ship in question will be pointless to scan for, quite often.

The problem has quite reversed itself, so you may want to adapt to the new circumstances as well.
An interceptor can be pointless to try scanning for, simply because by the time you scanned for it, the ship has either moved on to the next system, or already landed on grid with it's target.

You need to be able to anticipate it, as being able to react ahead of time becomes your only hope of evasion.

You already have these tools in the game.
Chat channels, with optional 3rd party voice coms, combined with other players in a position to report intel in a timely manner.

This would be the wrong thread to complain, regarding anticipated problems involving ships too fast for local chat to warn you about.

But, look on the bright side.
It adds more weight to your desire to keep local unchanged.

What Nikk is saying it that the game's mechanics are changing in a direction where local will become less and less useful for intel gathering...at least the interceptor change is a move in that direction. No ratter or miner is watching local every second in game. We have seen in this thread that people who use sentries often don't stay aligned. So a few seconds of inattention on the part of the ratter and a lucky choice of anomaly by the interceptor pilot and you end up with an expensive ship tackled. This is more true now than before the last update. Why?

Interceptors now ignore defensive bubbles, sending in the interceptor first makes tremendous sense for this reason. Interceptors also get into warp fast, and their warp speed is the highest in game now. This is also is a good reason to send in the interceptor first.

So now local becomes a bit less useful for the ratter. More such changes and we might get to a point where people in null have reduced their reliance on local to a point where changing it might not be a big deal...and depending on the change, maybe even a welcome one.

The mobile cyno jammer is another thing that makes it so that the ratter does not have to be as reliant on local. The both reduce, in their own way, the need to rely on local as a source of intel. In fact, the interceptor makes early reporting of a hostile even more beneficial. If I hear a guy is 3 jumps out I can recall/scoop drones and start aligning out. If I don't hear anything and the guy suddenly pops up in local, even not scooping drones and aligning out/initiating warp may not save my bacon. Because that interceptor is going to be on top of me much faster than before Rubicon.

That is what Nikk is saying.

But gameplay will have moved on without it.

Seems CCP likes the idea of null being risky.

Nope, otherwise they would have changed that too, now wouldn't they. Since they didn't we can make a reasonable inference CCP is still fine with the current mechanics.

This change would ruin wormholes.

Too bad for you CCP has now come out in favor of wanting to decouple Local and intel.

Do try to keep up.

You clearly do not want a discussion as you and lucas have both convinced yourselves that we just want to break the game.

The only thing you have done in this entire thread is shiptoast about "hur dur, you want to break the game". Even Lucas has been more constructive than you, which takes some serious ******* effort.

Which makes me ask, WTF Dude?!!?

Seriously I never advocated simply removing local. Ever. I always advocated replacing it with something and a nerf to cloaks.

So you want the improved/replacement local mechanics to require the same effort (i.e. none) as the current ones? That's not balanced :(

It is convenient that you cannot point to any specific flaw, except in a general sense, almost as if the screen gave off a bad odor when you tried to read it.

I suppose, in the strictest, most pedantic way, I do want to make it "harder". I think the amount of intel that is provided by local, how fast its provided, how certain that intel is to be correct, and how little effort is required is far from ideal.

But as I've spent two years in wormholes both hunting and evading with absolutely no local at all, and I managed quite well, and I think some kind middle ground between that wormhole style no-local-at-all mechanic and current k-space mechanics could work

Why would newer players be in null sec in the first place?

The bulk of context around this topic relates to AFK cloaking, which has little relative impact on newer players at all.