It's not griefing. It's just not balanced because they remain immune to player disruption of their activities.

Nullbears still cry over the lack of complete 100% safetly I see...

They always dock up when you enter local and the only counter to that is cloaky camping.

You cant have counter to both unless you also fix local.

I want to say that you have good intentions.

Your idea would make cloaks a liability whenever they were fitted.
Between existing penalties and benefits made meaningless by timers and ease of scanning, guerrilla warfare dependent on cloaks would be thoroughly compromised.

Try to consider, that cloaks must still be a desirable path for gameplay after any changes. Your idea makes them effectively worthless.

1. It is not harassment, at least not in the sense of the rules.

2. You are only aware of the presence of the cloaked player because of one thing and one thing only.
3. Change that one thing in the right way and AFK cloaking disappears.
4. No need for a log out timer.

Local, is intdeed part of the problem. How do you know an AFK cloaked player is there? Because of local chat. No local chat...no AFK cloaking. Without local working as it does now, how would you know a player is cloaked in system? Probes? Nope. D-Scan? Nope. Local, well we already changed that, so nope. So, prey tell how exactly would you know if local is delayed or removed would you know a player has been there for hours cloaked at a safe? Explain the in game mechanic you'd use, or the player based methods.

Seriously, if you are going to participate in this discussion you might want to learn the rudimentary aspects of it first.

Now, HOW do we get PvE pilots to engage in combat, instead of simply docking up or reshipping as they do now?

A ratting ship? Hardly defenseless,

He is also leaving out that when that pvp frig lands and points the ratter, every rat still on grid will target the PvP frig, and if there are enough of them, alpha it off grid.

Funny how they leave out these kinds of things.

Can you be anymore disingenuous? I have nowhere argued that any other player should have a chance of taking potshots at other players without the player being shot at having a chance to evacuate or whatever. This claim by you is just utter dishonest tripe.

Tell me, this kind of dishonesty, do you have to work at it, or does it come naturally?

Dude, two things....

1. I do a **** ton of indy stuff. I do invention, mining, ratting, and POS stuff. I've had plenty of alts killed by people using cloaks and other ships. So this idea that I'm arguing for my own sefl-interest...GFY.

2. I've been participating in this dicussion longer than your character has been in game. Forgive me if I've seen this **** more than than you've seen rats in HS (BTW, go check out the Cloaking Collection Thread in the OP by ISD LackOfFait, or suffice it to say that I had this idea before anyone in ISD even had a pube).

Now, maybe if you wanted to engage in a useful and interesting discussion I'd be a bit less sarcastic and dismissive. Like how we'll go forward on this issue...here let me help you:

1. I admit that AFK cloaking sucks. It is horrible thing and I have been admitting for probably 200 posts that AFK cloaking and local combine to make sub-optimal play.

2. I argue that local is an inextricably linked to AFK cloaking, and that just addressing AFK cloaking is actually unbalanced.

3. I have NEVER (as in ****ing ever) advocated simply getting rid of local.

4. With the prospect of the OA I have advocated giving local "back" to people who take the time and effort to get it back, but those who do not don't get it back...and that it be vulnerable.

To be quite honest I don't think people like you read posts like this one and instead post insipid and even borderline stupid posts about T2 probes, or some other stupid crap. Maybe if you went back to that post read it, honestly and gave your opinion...maybe you'd get something other than a sarcastic and dismissive post from me because I think you are just a short bus rider who had not really made an effort to join the conversation in a serious and meaningful way.

The following statement by Brokk Witgenstein was refreshing and made me delete a sarcastic and dismissive response,



I am interested in improving the game for both PvP AND PvE players. I actually do both. I have done invention, mining , mission, anomalies, and reaction towers as well as PvP. I straddle both sides of the discussion, to be quite honest. I don't want PvE to suck. Consider that Fozziesov is supposed to encourage occupancy to help in holding sov. I want NS alliances to want miners, inventors, builders, and PvP pilots (granted when the chips are down all of them will have to PvP). But to suggest, as Mike does, that I want cheap/easy kills or the like is complete nonsense. I want a NS that is rich and diverse and fun for lots of players. I want Nikk to have a home in NS, I want Mike to have a home in NS, I want you to have a home in NS, etc....well assuming you guys want it. And yeah, sometimes you guys might have to PvP.

Am I dismissive of many posts? Yes. Because I've seen the same stupid, thoughtless, tiresome arguments over and over and over. I've been reading these kinds of threads since 2008. T2 probes, the decloaking pulse, the cloak fuel, the cloak using cap, and so forth have been suggested again and again and again. If you have nothing other than those ideas kindly STFU, STFD, and preferably GTFO...and if that upsets you...well uninstall the ****ing game.

You claim AFK cloaking is griefing when it is clearly not.

Afk Cloaking is griefing....


You can tell this by the initial response you get from players. If they dock up and refuse to undock when it's in system... it means they are making the choice to not play the game.


If ccp had an even decent lead he would be able to spot/recognize this problem and would hot fix a change. This is where you recognize the difference between a Good Developer, and a crapy one.

I have a rule in development "Dont annoy the players" and i find "afk cloaking" to be an annoyance.

What should happen is the cloak should be changed to

- Take up large amounts of energy
- Reduced energy rates while active (or stopped).

No ship should sit cloaked more then 3-4 minutes, and since bombers have a way to warp around and what not
they most of all should not get that ability.

On another note....

If it was not possible to fit cyno modules on bombers, it would also remove the power the bomber has, as bombers by themselves are no threat to things like barges (not generally).

Yet another Simple change that would massively change the situation.


In short, some lead developer out there needs to be canned. And if he cared about his job, or even had a slight amount of concern in him, he'd hot fix it tomorrow.

Working as intended.

Posts by devs indicate the contrary. If you can't come up with a way to deal with a guy in a cloaked ship...that's on you.

You are being dishonest. I want to secure space for my own purposes. He represents a threat. Docked in a station is not equivalent to being in space in a combat ship ready to vaporize me. In any of the places I just named he too can get in a station if he needs to be AFK.


He is in open space, projecting a threat and potentially doing a great many things I might not want him to do. It's the core tennet of EVE that I should be able to go and express my displeasure with guns if I choose. He might be afk, he might be ready to fight. Does not really matter except that we have a conflict that should be able to be resolved.

Really, how many people have been killed by an AFK player, let alone an AFK player whose ship is cloaked? For that matter how many people have been by a ship that was cloaked?