Must... resist... quagmire...

Fine. WHs don't compain about AFK cloaking because they control their geography. They can close WHs, you can't close stargates in nullsec.

Thus, WHs =/= nullsec. Let's get that point in EARLY.

the point is the cloaker is in Hostile space and 100% safe
nothing should be 100% safe while ingame

and anyone that plays eve should know that after all its a golden rule in eve nothing is safe

i dont care that he cant harm me but i cant harm him while he is sitting in space and getting intel on us
we cant do anything to prevent that and intel has more value than some isk

No Risk / Huge Gain do you see my point

Stations can be flipped and station services can be offlined. The loss of a station can be devastating for a corporation or alliance.

as statet above

Stations can be flipped and station services can be offlined. The loss of a station can be devastating for a corporation or alliance.

they dont need to interact to gather intel sitting near the station looking what ships undock how many targets (players) are online at specific times and what ships are used for pve and pvp evtl a corp has a weekly mining op and after 2 weeks he noticed that they do the mining op every Friday etc etc

as long as they can see with d scan probes or visual they interact with the world they gather intel and nobody can do anything about it players sitting in stations they can be flipped and i by all means i had the joy to come back after a week and sitting in hostile space with no means to move my stuff out thats one of the risk players have while sitting in stations while cloakys have no risk and intel and if its that thats hinders improvement by all means make a thread and say what mechanic would be ok i have no problems with that

Yep there are NPC stations. Not all stations are invulnerable though

Sure, your line of reasoning makes complete sense! I admit defeat and I see the light now. While we're at it, we should also introduce a mechanic to *ahem* forcefully online all players that are offline, in space or not, so that you and I may unite our forces to gloriously PVP them. We can't stop there though, because that just leaves the filthy unsubbed in an un-PVPed state, so we must force new mechanics upon CCP post haste to subscribe all accounts past due, log them in, and PVP them- with vigor! Furthermore, I DEMAND we should resurrect all characters- especially those unfortunate enough to have their names stripped for them, being the lowliest of low, the downtrodden trial capsuleer, so that we may innervate them with a name-anew to resub, log them in, undock, and decloak them for their own benefit, so that they may taste the wonderous fury of baltec1's megathron!

Why wouldnt you just add a 1h cycle time to cloaks, maybe 2 for covert and give caps the trait of infinite cycle time. Supers would really be the only ones screwed by a 1h cycle so.....

Which is the thread title....

Now isn't it a little odd that those asking for cloaking nerfs, ignore the main issue? One would think balance would involve all the mechanics and change them together, to reach the best outcome.

Then why are you so afraid of a nerf of something that can't do anything anyways?

The issue that I have is that it is a powerful tool that has very few drawbacks right now and that a player can remain in a ship, cloaked in space indefinitely.

Aside from jump portals.

Or interceptors, other fast frigates, interdictors, logoffs, or awox alts. It's not the only counter, it's a counter, and again, for the thousandth time, I'm not asking for it to be removed, or even that local not be changed. The argument here is that local isn't perfect and that cloaking should have a limiting factor.

If your using the literal sense, then absolutely nothing that is legal is a counter since you can't remove yourself from local. AFK cloaking would be a counter to something the other pilots assess from that Intel. The Intel hasn't been fooled or changed.

If they catch anything they are. That's the point right?

Yeah, I think it is. If you're catching them, you've circumvented or used local to your advantage (i.e. caught fleeing ships in bubbles on the station.)

Not everyone.

No, it isn't.

Yes, you can actually, but I'm not even asking for that anyhow.

Nothing that local does tells you that he is inactive. The assumption as to whether or not the pilot is active or inactive is exactly that. An assumption. You can choose to treat him as AFK or as active. Local doesn't give you that.

That's the thing, it can't beat it. You are essentially working against the intelligence of the other person. Which is how most other ways around it work.

Weren't you the one chastising people in a battleship thread for not being able to invent new fits to ride along with harpy gangs in their megathron? Now, here you're telling me that you can't fit up an interceptor to catch an afk isktar at an anomaly or you can't catch one floating into a station with a dictor? That using local to bring potential targets to a central location isn't using local to your advantage? Sorry, it's not the only tool or the only counter, even if you're not able to see other potential solutions.

Safes are scannable and a POS can still be bubbled.

No, most ratting ships don't fit a cloak, and most POSs aren't covered in guns and ewar.

Feel free to show me an isktar that can warp out of an anomaly in the time a 2 second aligning 11.3 au/s ares can land on grid.

... then you have active cloaking, where they need to move from book mark to book mark when Recons are out hunting them, where they need to change systems or log off, where they need to make some really deep saved locations.

The damage AFK-cloakers do, for the effort they put in and the ability to pick and chose the best morsels is disproportionate.

Scout.

Most don't fit them, those that do often offline them. Other ships don't.

Other than staging and jump bridges most POSes have no or few guns.

Bring more than one interceptor and shotgun the sites players are most likely to be in, it's not like all anomalies are created equally.

Though simular, they are not the same. If one is hiding in a POS, the pos can be destroyed. If hiding in a station, the station can be flipped or sov lost in the system. Though these both take time, a system camper can stay in a system till the day the servers shut down and nothing will remove that player.

Which in itself is a valid point on why AFK cloaking is an issue.

Im not saying it should be a harsh change, theres no reason for a non cov ops ship to spend more than 15 minutes cloaked (safe log off timer) so i would aim for it to be set for around that time, with cov ops based ships able to spend more like 1 hour cloaked before any concern. (before any rigs)

If you take a look at SIFI in general cloaking devices generally require a massive amount of power, however in eve you can just cloak with no cost.

This is false in every sense. POS can be destroyed. A station can change hands, reinforced or taken. Though you cant eject the player, you always know where they are, and if they undock you know exactly where they will be.

None of these are true with a "AFK cloaker". As I said a few posts ago. They can stay cloaked safely in a system with minimal effort till the EVE servers are closed.

In what world do you live in where a station can not change hands or deny access. It happens all the time in Null

........ you dont seem to get it but then again you didnt seem to know stations in null could change hands, so... go figure.

Docked ships :
- Can't bubble, hot drop or otherwise interact with ships outside.

- Can't D-scan or see where the enemies are.

- It can undock blindly into a trap and be alpha'ed out of existance instantly.

Cloak ships can:
Do PI in the system, run remote markets, send ISK to people or recieve it and settle contracts.

Nothing should be 100% safe in EVE right?

Then, why is it ok for a cloaker to sit in a spot, untracable and 100% safe from discovery?

You contradict yourself.

(Also, aren't stations safe when docked? You're theory is not logical, some things are 100% safe in EVE)

That said, claoky campers do have a one sided argument. There should be balance, and a counter to at least 'try' and attempt to rout them out. Equally shouldn't be a win win to decloak them, but give a bit of cat and mouse, make it a challenge, something to do, not an impossibility.

How is this any different than PVP players? It's a pointless statement. Who would willingly reduce their efficency?

You honestly dont get it or you are just trying to split hairs or something.

I am sorry you misunderstand the role of your ship and what you have chosen to take into combat. It is not my fault that you somehow feel that a class of ships designed for stealth is also not the ultimate killing machine.

Please stop trying to make it sound like you are some poor helpless PVPer cause you have to equip a cloak on your ship.

So again, you are mistaken in your assessment that PVPers bend and PVEers dont.

Though if you feel cloak is such a hindrance to your ability to hunt PVEer's then you should have no issue with this topic at all. Who knows. Modifications to local and cloak could lead to more PVP. But you dont actually want that. You just want your nice easy kills. I keep forgetting your only interested in PVE targets.

Show me the tool that already exists to scan down a cloaked ship? Or even get within range to then use other means to decloak it. Or a means to wear down a cloak so that it becomes not a cloak.

All those things you say above deal with an uncloaked ship.

You dont need to afk cloak to kill people in null-space. Kills can and do happen on a regular basis without camping a system, and most importantly without a cloak.

E: im speaking of ratter and miner kills specifically

Sometimes yes, but not always, and not the majority.

Your opinions on how it effects sov space, or doesn't, really isn't the question here.

Add "last seen in 'ship type'," to tracking agent reports.

Add tracking to Sov that allows Sov holders to get mail in the same way tracking agents send it. If Skydell is in system, she was seen at Gate A in a Pilgrim just before it cloaked.

If you know I am cloaked up in a Pilgrim you know what I am capable of doing and can prepare for it.

If you want to take it a step further, add a module to Titan, similar to remote ECM but it will decloak everything in system. If the person is ATK, they will be able to cloak back up. If they are truly AFK, they die in a fire.

How about using these new npc sleeper's to but a spanner in the works for cloaky campers have them deal with them the possibility of having your ship killed by them sounds fantastic

i.e for those of you talking about POSes and locsl channels etc this is not the point of the tread.

That is untrue. Thought we went over this a few pages back in regards to a ship being 100% safe in space and how that wasnt exactly a good thing.

CCP needs to look at the mechanisms to deal with people who are not actually playing the game using their logged in character to stop other people from playing the game. You can put words in my mouth all you want, but my suggestion is the best way to deal with the AFK cloaky camping issue which drives players away from Eve.

Please show evidence to prove that this is not the case...

Spot on, but its classic baltec1 where he just throws prove it when he knows that most people have anecdotal evidence only, I have known quite a few people who left the game with this round the clock AFK cloaky camping as being one of their reasons.

And you notice that he has not anything to say of the AFK flag suggestion at all, when they try to divert attention and shoot at the person making the suggestion then you know that they find the idea less than appealing but can see no way to counter it on its own merits.

The issue is not cloaking, its continuous AFK cloaking 23.5/24 and 7/7 take that issue away as per my suggestion and people would be happy with the mechanism.

One thing you see thrown at you when raising this issue is that they are AFK so they won;t hurt you, so my reply to that is an AFK flag, the answer being well in which case they would not mind an AFK flag.

That last sentence is all I really can be botherd to reply to, of course you do, you are numerous, well equipped exceptionally well organised and have so much ISK that you don't care about losing multiple AFK Ishtars, drop in the ocean old bean. If anyone deserves to be at the top of the pile due to sheer organisational brilliance its the Goons.

There is no other entity in this game that has the will and the means to defend the top ratting systems like you do. You can of course say that AFK cloaky camping does not matter because you guys can deal with it, so lets all become Goons then, problem solved.

In terms of the lied bit https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5465046#post5465046

Oh dear the wormhole argument again, well while you can light a cyno in worm hole space, nothing can jump to it, its not what is in system which is the problem, its what can cyno in on you that is, doh can you think it through before posting, facepalm!!!

In terms of the D-scan immunity, yeah too damn right I rage quit, it was the final straw, my arguments are posted on EN24 which explain why.

The best null sec block in the game who can escalate to the end game is able to defend their key ratting systems deep in the heart of their territory, well who would have expected that?

No not everyone can do it, its the ability to escalate, though its anticipating how they will do that will give you a chance. Your coalition had a terrible time with PL dropping large fleets of BLOP's a couple years back, until you managed to catch them once and gave them a good kicking, which I cheered by the way and they stopped doing it. But what chance a small medium alliance near Catch against PL for example? Its not impossible, but its damned hard.

Think some alliance near Catch and think what they have in range, then think about what happens if they escalate, now compare to the heart of Deklin and what you can escalate, that's a major difference.

I have already left null and am in hisec, I took that decision after the D-scan immunity stupidity and I am going to watch and see how occupational sov develops. As for beating me in their sleep, very droll, but thats actually a bit of a joke both ways isn't it?

Then your earlier statement is incorrect then?

But then again I never understood why they allowed almost every ship in the game to fit a cloak either.

Celestia. Your entire post ignores one key fact. The fact that you can achieve 100% safety with a cloak. Even the most basic of the cloaks.

And of course this is the great debate. I personally dont believe the statement is true. I believe it can have a great effect on things, even if no shots are ever fired.

Celestia. Logging off is just a silly argument. You arent even in the game. As for docked. That is a limited safety. That station can change hands if it is in null space, and though you might be safe, you cant do anything. Not even proper intel.

.

The issue here is that the risk is too damn great for people to operate, contrary to peoples perception of me as being full of fear etc., I was actually belt ratting to have fun while grinding giving people a merry chase and trying to pick them off if they made mistakes in my period in Stain, I did the PvE with ships fitted for PvP, see my article on EN24. I got a few but most were wise to me, removing local would make it just a question of having three accounts minimum and lots of screens just to operate in 0.0. Or I have to sit around waiting for my assistance in corp to come in which means I twiddle me thumbs...

At that point ISK making in 0.0 as a small corp or solo person is not valid, so I would decide as I did recently after the D-scan nerf to just do level 4's in hisec and come into 0.0 for fun and games only. What will happen then:

Massive whining by gankbears asking for hisec rewards to be nerfed and rewards in 0.0 to be increased, but CCP cannot nerf level 4's because at this point there are a lot of people in hisec who do that and many would just go, nah not going to null.

If you want an empty wastelands with pockets of large groups together in -1.00 systems and a few groups ninja operating then yeah remove local, it would be amusing to watch from hisec!

That being said I hope the new Jovian space has no local if that is what is happening of course, then we can test your ideas, but it also requires no intel about activities that enable hunters to easily zoom in on people.

So stating a fact that a game mechanic WH which has limited mass as compared to a cyno that does not has zero merit, methinks you try too hard...

So you just theory craft with EFT then? And very well I may add

Its called escalation which often occurs when a defender has caught an attacker and is making mincemeat out of them so they escalate to save them.

Of course someone would not escalate in Deklin, they can't, but in regions close to Catch PL could escalate to the end game, on for example an event started by a BLOP's fleet getting caught, its pretty obvious...

But that is now rather difficult to do with the changes to power projection, its not impossible but its only people like Black Legion who have the attitude for it in Deklin, the others do smaller stuff.

I never said they would dump strat fleets on ratters, I have always been talking about potential escalations.

Triage set up for that when I knew the fleet that the Razor campers could bring in, did not get dropped as they knew they could not take us. 15 may be what you see in Deklin, in other space its less due to obvious reasons. Gang, what do you define as a Gang, what many people define as a fleet I would guess?

Answer this then, is your friends WH subject to the same neighbours every day? No!

And a Cyno has no limits in terms of mass unlike WH's

Stop it, its foolish, its not the same!

I dont think it really is. Though I can see how it could easily frustrate people enough to move back to High sec.

Nikk. I am not proving the point of it null is safe or not. I am pointing out that you are still wrong in regards to AFK cloaking being the only way to get kills.

Try to stay on topic. Your claim is that AFK cloaking should be allowed cause its the only way to get kills. This is wrong and with provable evidence.

Only if you accept the term at its most literal. AFK cloaker is a general term for a style of game play. You know that and you know your statement is wrong.

There is plenty of proof that AFK cloaking is not the only way to get kills.

Please review the last 61 pages of posts. You will find all the evidence you need.

Sorry man. I just dont wanna go round and round with you on circular arguments. I mean you did spend a good portion of the thread saying stations cant change hands.

But they are. The only reason you are ready for them is because you've preemptively mitigated their risk as many players do. That doesn't mean they aren't a threat, it simply means you've identified them as a threat and dealt with that. And that still doesn't explain why 100% safety while AFK in space is something you think is a good idea.

The key difference there is you can be observed. We can watch the undock or watch you in the station and the moment you undock we know about it. Cloakers don't have that, they can seemlessly move between active an inactive and you'll only know when they are on grid and attacking. Also, stations can be attacked, taken over and docking rights clone contracts revoked making it a one time undock..

And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere.

On this point I lean more towards Lucas' position. With gates and cynos (yes, even still after the nerf) null sec is a bit more problematic than WH when it comes to local, intel, and so forth. While it could be argued that there is too much isk entering the economy via anomalies and that nerfing local/intel may be reasonable, but at the same time if that source of isk is nerfed too much we could end up with a situation just as bad as hyperinflation: deflation.

As has been linked in this thread CCP is watching the money supply and is aware that letting the money supply increase too much can be bad. Conversely not letting it increase fast enough can also be bad. If the value of isk is increasing faster than you can produce stuff you are better off just holding cash...and production goes down the crapper too (e.g. the Great Depression of which a major contributor was deflation which occurred when the money supply was allowed to actually shrink, countries that went off the gold standard early and actually allowed inflation had a much better time than those that stayed on the gold standard).

So...nerf local and nerf cloaks is probably the best approach along with a way to set up an intel infra-structure. Something that is vulnerable to hostile players. Something that could even be subverted would be really cool but is probably not something we'd see for quite some time.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I don't think whatever intel feature replaces local should be anywhere as good as local currently is which actually gives advance warning (in a way) to the resident ratter that a hostile has entered system.

It is perfectly possible to catch people in this game without having to use a delayed local, that people require such help make them losers in my opinion.

To me a person who uses AFK cloaky camping to get a kill is a lazy loser because instead of active play to get a kill he is into inactive play to get a kill. So a lazy loser in my book. But what does it matter what I think of the person who does this, if it floats your boat then do it, but don't expect any respect for it from those who know just how lame it really is.

This game has had a number of things changed to make it easy to get quick thrill easy kills and that has actually made a lot of people decide that Eve is not for them. The lack of kills however is more to do with a lack of prey doing things in game more than anything else.

It is because you are lazy.

Lazy and easily bored then...

Says the person who can only cloaky AFK camp for two days....

1. Then why do it then?

2. How do we know whether the player is AFK or not (Made more difficult with recent changes in the game.)

3. So does it matter if we flag them as AFK then (Suddenly it does...)

See you ignored my comment on your moronic statement. I thought you would, not a surprise.

What am I nerfing exactly?

No problem with ATK

No issue with ATK, only AFK play 24/24 and 7/7...

That is just a stupid troll comment, there are lots of posts in this thread where the harm done by this is explained in great detail.

Reading and comprehension is obviously not you...

As I said there are plenty of people who posted in this thread about how destructive AFK cloaky camping is to gameplay if you are unable to read them that is your issue..

You seem to like the troll line:

"They can't kill you when AFK"

Hence I called you a troll for it and continue to call you a troll, baltec1 also uses the same line and is trolling too.

So you support AFK play then.

So you support AFK play then.

Quite simply you and people like you support AFK play which directly affects other people, that is all there is to say about the subject.

As for your little digs in reply to my simple statement of truth, I would be quite happy to see auto log off's in terms of people sitting in a station who have no activity for an hour. Fitting in with my AFK flag suggestion from an OS.

And an AFK ratter is making himself more exposed, he is in space in a position to be caught, more fool him, if those people want to give easy kill content to others that is their choice, it really only worked in Deklin when the Goons were protected by their meat shield.

But I repeat my statement, you support AFK play.

Well seeing as your corp was one of those making billions doing AFK ratting in Deklin and I have never AFK ratted, I have to wonder about you.

Both are equally wrong in terms of being AFK, one is making billions while AFK and the other is preventing active players from making billions while AFK.

Simply put your support for AFK cloaky camping means you support AFK play, your corp actively AFK ratted, what more can one say.

Easy enough to check Bat County on Zkill, just go to stats then click on HAC's then go to page 16 and there they are in all their AFK glory...

Well either you guys were AFK or you were not able to use local properly and are massively incompetent, it shows that people can catch people if they want to and do not need to resort to lame AFK play.

You just support AFK play, you ratted AFK and you hunt AFK simple really.

Heylo, I return. Lets see if I can answer this in a way that doesn't make me come off like a... well, you know.

At least out my way, which admittedly is not the most dangerous of space, having an AFK cloaker in system makes people cautious to bring out their PVE boats, if not downright afraid. The potential for a hot drop coming their way on whatever bling they normally run inhibits their desire to risk it.

The answer to this, given current mechanics, is to rat in groups in pvp ships and fits. Which seems simple enough, if you can get a small group of people to transition to a more PVP mindset. Not quite as easy as it sounds, despite Eve being a pvp game.

Now. I've said it before, I'm not looking for a direct nerf to cloaks or the ships that use them. I desire an option to go on the offensive so that both sides have offensive and defensive options to deal with each other. With the appropriate reductions in power that come from fitting such things. Cloaky camper has to fit the cloak, anti-cloak has to fit the launcher/module/whatever is needed to scan for variances that lead to the area where the cloak-using ship is.

There are two other points I'd like to make. First, if we're not allowed to be safe anywhere, and that means cloaky campers are allowable... I'd ask why they are allowed to be "safe" by being unscannable? Only safe spot is in an NPC station, no? If you're undocked, you're not safe, but sitting afk all day in a safe spot with your cloak on makes you... safe. This seems like a one-sided defense of the practice, and not in keeping with the argument used to defend it. A mechanic that only works one way, which I tend to dislike.

The second point is this. You've expressed that cloaky camping is the only counter to local. Do the campers not also benefit from local? They can see the ebb and flow of traffic through a system, follow and look up specific targets by name via the local list just the same as anyone else. For the purposes of checking killboards and determining what types of ship/fits they fly before choosing to drop or not drop. While you might argue that they don't rely on it as much, it is still a 2-way source of free intel. So arguing that being cloaked and camping as a counter to local seems a bit silly to me.

But, with that said, I'm learning to manipulate d-scan as my primary source of information instead of relying on local as much. I would adapt to the removal of Local as a passive intel source and make it something less... so. All you get is a number of player signatures in system. No names, no tags. Unless someone broadcasts into local. Doesn't tell you when a person has left, just that someone has by an uptick or downtick in the number of player signatures. Call it stargate tracking, whatever.

So you hop into a system with a high number but there's not a gate camp in effect? You're free to go about your day, but keep your d-scan pinging so you can see incoming FoF's and take action accordingly. Any group with a halfway decent intelligence division would rig something up within those mechanics to single out neutrals and foes, but it would have to be a much more active process.

And that, I am okay with. Does that cover everything? Oh. Right. I'm against any AFK gameplay. Sitting AFK in a station waiting on trades to go through is one thing. AFK mining, ratting or camping? Not so much. I say kill all AFK playstyles.

You read the part where I said to change local too, right?

People complain because of "What if?". What if I lose my ship to this guy who is just sitting there, what if that guy who hot-dropped a blingy ratter three hours ago is still here. What if that tackle logged out in system and is just waiting to go, watching through a spy?

They'll find a way to complain. The mentioned mechanics won't change that, but if done correctly... they'll deliver some measure of "Well go out there, find the guy and DO something about his suppression efforts" to both sides of the hunter/hunted equation.

Target: Defensive action - I'm going to put together a bait ship with tackle and a cyno, and have people waiting to counterdrop.
ATK Cloaker: Defensive action - Yeah, I've checked that guy. That looks like a trap. I'm not going in on that.
Target: Offensive action - ????
ATK Cloaker: Offensive action - I'm going to drop on this guy here, pin him in place and call in my buddies for the kill.

^-- This is literally all I'm suggesting. Add in an offensive action so that both sides have play and counter play on both offense and defense. The other suggestions about local were me trying to work around things that other people have called into play as talking points.

I think. Work day is dragging on, sorry if I have been at all unclear or rambly. I do that sometimes.

I am not asking for a nerf, I am adding content, a conflict driver, do keep up...

The counter to local which is a long term game mechanic is to use your brain, there have been many people killed with local, just because you are too lazy to deal with it does not mean others are not.

My suggestion was based on not breaking cloaking, my solution only flags them as AFK after one hour of no activity. Can't see how I am breaking cloaking.

The issue is the AFK part, just bring in more active players or are you so useless you can't even do that, fail lazy AFK cloaky campers are fail any which way you slice and dice it...

It is all about removing damaging AFK play mate...

Oh this issue is limited to nullsec only. I'm not even thinking about W-space, or lowsec or highsec when talking about this.

That is the problem here. Finding the right way to make it balanced for all parties. That is the reason for the 300+ pages of discussions. 99% of the "solutions" are too much for one side or another.

Why not fix both? Remove the free intel from local, force people to be on their toes defensively and monitor active scanning to keep themselves safe while at the same time offer a module solution to tracking down someone with a cloaking device? Make it much harder to pin down an actively paying attention cloaker and the attack cloakers still remain reasonably safe.

So you have an issue with ATK cloakers? If he is doing something like lighting a cyno he is ATK.

Seems to me the issue you have is the uncertainty.

So you think he is doing PvP while AFK now that is plain wrong in this game and needs to end.

So says a loser old player who relies on this to get easy kills.

Depends on a number of factors, can be easy, can be impossible. But tell me, did you spend most of those two days AFK cloaked in that little bomber of yours while playing other games or doing something else?

Some people can kill stuff without having to use boredom to grind people down...

Well instead of testing myself against players I worked out that I was testing myself against **** poor mechanics and lazy useless players, so where is the fun in that for someone who wants to test himself against people with something about them. AFK cloaky camping is just the fallback position of losers.

AFK cloaky camping is a strategy used by lazy losers.

It is your only counter to local...

Your as in you, being that you are not up to doing anything else to get around it...

Yah, I frequent wormholes a couple times a week. Its the safest way to get to high sec.

The idea was to reload the cloak once the 5 hours worth of charges loaded in the cloak are used. I dont care if you can carry 6 months worth of charges in your cargo hold. The only criteria is that you have to reload the cloak at least once every 5 hours.

Its a pretty low threshold suggestion that adresses only the afk component of afk cloaky camping. The ship has to be actively managed at least every once in a while. That is all.

Content meaning many things. Including not being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky campers closing up systems so we cannot catch ratters when we roam through afk cloaky camped systems (I do not really think cloaky campers make space less safe. They just make space less used).

Or you could just switch to the cloaky camper desktop every 5 hours and reload the cloak charges to keep your "counter to local" active. For an example of how a "counter to local" would still exist. Its not exactly a very strenuous criteria.

Though I kind of prefer small gang roams as a "counter to local" myself. Shot gun for the win....if not for the rooster-blocking afk cloaky campers keeping our would be victims docked up that is.

They know the afk cloaky camper has to be active at least once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute.

Nothing is broken.

Helper
Baltecs point is that afk cloaky campers are white noise that players become accustomed to and assume are always afk. So they ignore them. Then the afk cloaky camper can effectively do his weekly blops on whatever unsuspecting ratters had been ignoring him for so long.

I do not agree with that point at all for a number of reasons. But I accepted the argument at its face value because he is in error.

Baltec
You are wrong. As I demonstrated with a simple time analysis.

It means they know it is active at least once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute. As opposed to them knowing it is active at least once a every 24 hours for at least a fraction of a minute.

It does not break anything.

It does however dramatically increase the chance of human error. An afk cloaky camper would have to be somewhat skilled to avoid getting caught every now and then when he or she is at the pub longer than planned and pass the 5 hour time limit.

The horrors of implicit counterplay.

Being active once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute does not entail that there must be available targets you are compelled to attack simply because you had to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop to reload ammo charges.

There is no connection between reloading charges and attacking ratting ships.

There are incidentally many other "counters to local".

Yea I've got to admit I'm confused now.

I thought we didn't want any solution to interfere with active cloakers; but five hours is a generous offer no? If that timespan is unacceptable to you, then you're basically saying you want AFK cloaking to exist.

Teckos
The idea is good. Nor are the ships gimped in any meaningful way.

It is steamlined with link bursts ammunition being introduced in november. Also nicely streamline with alpha clone arrival. There is a risk of afk-cloaky camper accounts being unsubbed. Which hardly matter in an rl economic sense, but could cause a slight drop in player numbers on the server which is not good. But does not matter after alpha clones arrive as those numbers will easily fill any gap.

So we are approaching a good time to make a change.

But thank you for sharing your opinion. It's always nice to see you use adjectives and adverbs and stuff.

Brokk
The only negatives from an afk-cloaky camping perspective that I see are:

Afk cloaky camping becomes slightly greater than 0-effort
Some chance of human error arises that might occassionally allow a afk-cloaky camper to be scanned down.

The second point occuring only if the afk cloaky camper remains afk for more than 5 hours and is particularly unlucky. This to me is a good thing. The afk-cloaky camper is no longer absolutely invulnerable and content is added as there is now a point to using combat probes outside of accessable d-scan range. Something might be found once every blue moon.

Human error is a great content provider.

Its not the "only counter to local"

nor will it destroy ratting (which is what you are saying)

. Nor do you have to set your alarm clock.

When tired; log-off and go to bed.

Anything that can catch a ratting ship is a "counter to local" .

It seemed you were suggesting that if ratters assumed afk-players were online at least every 5 hours, they would stop ratting.

It is not safe to rat if local is empty. Once you undock your ship you are vulnerable to unsolicited pvp. In its many forms.

Empty local means among other things that roaming gangs have a good shot at shotgunning a system and catching ratters.

Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively.

So you are claiming 5 hour ammunition capacity will kill ratting. So the "counter to local" remains intact by your own words.

A ratter is safe until he is caught. Which can happen fast. Faster and more often in fact if afk cloaky campers were not rooster blocking other options.

Perhaps you should create a thread on the pros and cons of free intel. Its a bit off topic frankly.

Local is countered if the ratter is caught. By definition. Afk-cloaky camping does not meet that definition and is thus not a counter to local.

Ratting has been killed if ratting ships never undock. Which you claim is the effect of a cloak charge.

The only thing a ratter knows is that an afk-cloaky camper now has to actively recharge his or her cloak once every 5 hours if the cloak is to function. Thus, ratting ships do not know if the player with the cloaked ship is afk or not.

It has been successfully argued here that afk cloaky camping is done to generate 0-effort kills at the convenience of the afk cloaky camping player.

That local in null-sec need counters is a completely different discussion deserving of its own thread. Perhaps. There probably are such threads at the bottom of the board somewhere.

Afk cloaking camping did serve an important purpose. It helped increase the Eve server player count. This will no longer be needed with the advent of alpha clones.

Winter is coming, bro. Be less entrenched and try to find a low impact change you can live with.

Do you really want CCP to come up with the equivalent of a cloak fatigue timer?

Baltec
"The counter to local" is to act too quickly for a player to react to the information he has. Be it a small gang roam, or a with a cyno and a web from a normally afk cloaky camper.

There is no flaw to my logic. It makes no inherent difference if an afk-cloaky camper is active once a day, or active once every 5 hours. Its not the act of maximising a desk top that determines if a afk cloaky comper will seek combat.

I don't actually consider afk cloaky camping derived combat to be pvp. The variables are controlled too rigidly by the afk cloaky camper for it to be much more than the pvp equivalent of a super blop dropping on whatever ratting carrier they feel like blooping./

We saw what happened to the blops. Enhancing the number of players on the server is the only reason afk cloaky camping is still a thing. And that justification is gone with the next update.

Baltec
Ships warp away quite often when reds jump into system. But not always.

From a roaming perspective afk cloaky campers keeping targets docked and safe is a much more fine meshed safety net than the opportunities human error would otherwise have created by increasing the volume of ships in space. Each indiviual ship representing a possibility of someone screwing up and getting caught.

You are rooster blocking us, bro. And by rooster blocking I mean the other word for a male chicken. At least have the common decency to have that desktop active every 5 hours when you do it.

The whole point of afk cloaky camping is that people have to assume you are active until they tire of acting on that assumption. it makes no difference if you have to momentarily have that desktop active once a day, or once every 5 hours. People will assume you are active until they tire of it under both conditions.

Excessive control of variables in afk cloaky camping has much more in common with pve than it does pvp. Sorry if that fact hurts your feelings.

The only reason indefinately sustainable afk cloaky camping exists is because afk cloaky campers help keep server numbers up. A factor no longer relevant after alpha clones are introduced.

Baltec
Human error, bro. Let me walk you though it.

You say you have to camp for a week until players tire of assuming you are active. Then you can catch a single ratter. Then another week passes, then you catch another one.

In both those weeks, there are no ships to catch on roams because you have caused them all to dock up.

If you (and your brothers and sisters afk camping innumerable systems) had not been there, then ships would be undocked and busy ratting.

Most would warp off when a red spike turns up in local, but not all. And a roam can cover scores of systems in a typical 2 hour run.

You are in other words keeping ratters safe by keeping them docked up.

Roams still kill more ratters and miners than afk cloaky campers do. But that is simply because afk-cloaky campers have not fully saturated all systems. So roams can catch ratters in systems not rendered inactive by the afk.

Surely you can see that a mechanism that breds inactivity is slated for termination. The only cause for keeping it was to keep server numbers from plummeting. And that function is not required after alpha clones are introduced.

A 5 hour cloak charge capacity is the least intrusive adjustment I can think of. CCP will probably opt for something more rigerous.

But at least you can't say I did not try. Which is more than you can say about many.

Ah, Baltec, I see you've not skimmed the history. Let me help you where this will go with a brief recap.

Local has nothing to do with it, it is something else.

Soon to be followed by the "implicit threat"

Pretty soon after you'll be treated to nonsensical reasons why you're wrong, complete with validated proof.

There is also judicious handbags at dawn to be expected as claims are disproven.

Enjoy your stay.

--

We're being cloaky camped all the time right now and frankly it's just fine. People have standing fleets, support, collaboration. It works just fine.

I don't come on the forums often so I don't know what all options have been offered. I just want to throw out an idea for consideration in case it hasn't been mentioned yet in the last 347 pages.

I have seen in some games where the game itself will have some mechanic for AFK check.

I am thinking the drifters and/or circadian seekers could provide a good platform for such a mechanic. You could say that they are interested in energy readings they get from cloaking for whatever reason. Having cloaks active in the system might have a x% chance to cause drifter/seeker activity to increase by z%. Further, there could be some attraction to the grid where a cloak is active. Once on the grid the drifters/seekers could perhaps begin seeking out the cause of the readings they are picking up from a cloak being active. Over a long period of time they could perhaps decloak someone who had kept direction and velocity constant for too long; this could be almost accidental simply decloaking by proximity. They may not even be interested in the actual cloaked ship but perhaps they mistook the readings for something else they were looking for.

As an example it could take a matter of hours for the drifters/seekers to be attracted to the grid where a cloak is active. It could perhaps take another hour for them to actually decloak someone who was not moving; perhaps it would take two hours to decloak someone who was maintaining a constant direction and velocity. Perhaps a change in either direction or velocity would set back the process by another hour or two.

Just to briefly go over some of the implications this could provide... AFK cloaking in a system where drifters/seekers are currently active could be more dangerous than systems where they are not present. It may not be possible to be thoroughly sure if they are in fact active in a system. So there is the possibility that you may have less time to AFK safely then you think. If drifters/seekers are on a grid there is a possibility they have been attracted by a cloak; especially if they behave oddly. You may even be able to guess where that cloak may be by observing the behavior of the drifters/seekers.

I do not follow how my idea brings us to where AFK cloaking is a counter to local.

I would be in favor of removing local. But that seems like a discussion for another thread.

I think my idea would work with or without local.

Baltec
Catching ratting ships is the only counter to local. Which afk cloaky campers cannot do by defintion.

The only raison etre for safe and sustained afk anything is to enhance player numbers on the server.

And that era ends on November 8th.

Get into a t1 frigate, fly off into deep space in a system and counter local perpetually. You dont need a cloak to do "your only counter to local"

The raison etre for safe and perpetually sustainable afk anything mechanisms is to buff the number of people (technically accounts) on servers.

No longer desirable after 8. of November. So can be removed.

baltec
fitting a t-1 frigate to be uncatchable even if scanned down is trivial.

Player motivation for using afk cloaky camping is irrelevant, though obviously they use it to generate 0 effort kills at their convenience.

Else they would be countering local in high sec.

Baltec
To do that you have to be cap stable. Then mwd off into deep space until hell freezes over (aka server downtime).

Afk anything is by definition 0-effort.

You were arguing afk cloaky camping is the only counter to local. Not only is it not the only counter to local, it is also not a counter to local. Hence its non-use in high sec.

Also. Concord retaliates, it does not protect. As the ganked know.

Baltec
I think it a bit off-topic to explain to you how speed tanking makes it almost impossible to catch a ship by probbing it down.

Suffice to say that you are incorrect.

afk cloaky camping is 0-effort by definition.

An opportunity cost is a different matter. Which might help you grasp the opportunity cost afk cloaky campers inflict on others. Your one character opportunity cost inflicts a disproportionate opportunity cost on potentially endless other players who must stay docked unless they are willing to make a mistake and undock.

If a counter to local does not work where local exists, then it is not a counter to local.

Afk cloaky camping It may be percieved as a counter to something else (for example unreasonable isk/hour expectations), but that is an issue that would need to be discussed on its own basis.

The distinction between concord keeping people safe and concord retaliating is vitally important to understand. Though off-topic in this thread of course.

Baltec
You certainly have the right to your opinions. Feel free to have as many of them as you like.

You remain incorrect in your pot's musings. But I will defend with my life your right to be wrong.

Or we can just remove afk cloaky camping since it does not do anything. Yay. Thread resolved!

Today I learned you think cynos can be lit in HS.

Baltec
It does not counter local. Else it would be used in high sec.

Perhaps formulate clearly what you think afk cloaky camping does counter and how that is achieved.

I suspect you might find outragous isk/tick expectations to be a constructive path to follow.

Baltec
Do you need help fitting a t1 frigate?

baltec
Would it be fair to say that afk cloaky camping habituates players into eventually making a mistake (undocking to rat in a system containing at least one hostile ship)?

It boils down to the line I fed you:

Afk cloaky camping is ultimately a counter to high isk/tick expectations using highly optimized ratting ships without the perception of risk (from the user perpective there is no risk of losing the ratting ship).

Its not a counter to local. Otherwise it would be used in high sec.

Edit
Afk cloaky camping certainly is a counter to small gang roams.

You keep our targets docked up bro. Far more effectively than any alliance warning system can.

Ratpack
There we go. Yes, afk cloaky campers do indeed represent chaff in null-sec local. Thank you.

The chaff does two things:

1. It discourages activity by keeping players docked up.
2. It habituates player into acting as if an unsafe environment is safer than it is.

The problem is that step 2. is incredibly time consuming. Recent afk cloaky campers in this thread mention weeks of habituation time before making a kill is viable.

This amounts to content removal.

Afk cloaky campers are rooster blocking small gang roams that rely on the combination of high target density + human error to get kills.

My suggestion (cloaks aligned to the new command burst system. 5 hour charge capacity for the cloaking module) allows for sustained, but not indefinate afk cloaky camping, while introducing an element of human error to afk cloaky camping operation.

Doing this would increase content in a number of ways with very little in the way of intrusive impact on the afk cloaky camper life-style.

I would run with this if I were you. The raison etre of afk anything is gone with the introduction of alpha clones. Server numbers no longer need the active player number buff afk anything represents.

Change is coming and this suggestion is the most painless of many imaginable.

I was actually going to suggest you check out your alliance fleetops for t1 frigate fits. Use your alliance resources. PL is there to help you.

You are incorrect in your claim on afk cloaky campers. Afk cloaky campers camp systems that are used for PVE. That is the only discernable criteria.

The act of keeping ratting ships docked rooster block small gang roams. Roams that cover a tremendous number of systems over the course of a typical two hour roam.

The only reason CCP had to not fundamentally changed the cloaking mechanism to castrate its use for removing content is to keep server numbers buffed. That reason is gone, a cloak nerf is coming.

Ratpack
High target density + human error = kills.

Why not put 300 ratting ships out in the multitude of systems that a 2 hour roam crosses through. Then define "quite rare" any way you like and tell me how many kills the small gang roam would get if not for the content destroying, rooster blocking afk cloaky campers.

Ah, yes. Destroying content because solo. The tragedy of the Commons in a nutshell.

Except afk cloaky camping is not really solo is it? It's afk.

Baltec
"feel free to roam around in a solo ship" is what you said. Something that cannot be done afk as afk removes a human actor from the equation by definition.

The issue regarding afk cloaky camping remains one of pisspoor time management. Destroying content for weeks to accomodate biweekly single kill events is simply not viable without a business side buffer.

The business side buffer is gone with the introduction of alpha-clones. Your services buffing the number of players on server (which is the one thing the afk lifestyle excels at) is not longer required.

Baltic
You are wrong in every way except using your right to express your opinion.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro.

Baltec
I asked if you needed help fitting a T1 frigate. I did not offer to actually help you, though I repeatedly did advise that you seek alliance council if you are that interested.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that your dogmatic positions are wrong.

Ratpack
Peas of a pod...

Any T1 frigate that looks like POS trash and can speed tank is fine. Head into deep space and afk until hell freezes over (aka server downtime).

Baltec
Your view is symptomatic perhaps of the extreme risk adversion afk cloaky campers share as a common trait. Something is broken unless 100% certain?

If the t1 frigate was actually caught on dscan range and someone thought "yay, a t1 frigate. I better probe it down", then the ship would also have to arrange for speed capability able to catch up with the speed tanked frigate (ships warp to the were the frigate was, not where it is when they exit warp). In what paranoid universe is that a likely sequence of events?

And even if we were to enter that incredble universe for a moment....then all the t1 frigate pilot has to do is try again the next day. He only needs to get out of dscan range to never be found again (barring completely ludicrous series of events).

Sonya
You have the right to your opinion. And my pity from what I am garnering from the tediousness of the wormhole lifestyle.

Baltec
Thank you for both those opinions. Feel free to have as many as you like.

Ratpack
Randomly probbing deep space? Now Sonya's watching paint dry wormhole existence seems exciting compared to how you must think the game should be played.

Ratpack
You are in error, my dear friend.

Someone claimed afk-cloaky camping was a counter to local. I disproved that claim by looking at local in high sec.

Baltec
The assumption is always that single reds in system are afk cloaky campers.

PvP is generally far more expensive that non-PvP. Because pvp tends to cause more losses than non-pvp. There are exceptions. Afk cloaky campers are one of those exceptions (the ability to control variables excessively gives afk cloaky camping derived combat great similarity to pve).

Afk cloaky camping decreases pvp by decreasing available content for other pvp styles to exploit.

[quote=Jerghul]

Sonya
afk cloaky camping does keep people from undocking. Which is a problem for other pvp playing styles like small gang roams.

That is untrue. The assumption is that single reds that remain in system not in direct proximity to gates are cloaked.

Probing rarely if ever takes place in response to single reds or neuts.

Ever realize that losing ships in PvP is more expensive than not losing ships in PvP?

Human error assures that ships will get caught in systems small gang roams pass through if ships are actually undocked.

Ratpack
Yepp. It is hard to take the "lets turn null-sec into surrogate wh-space to fix afk cloaky camping issues" arguement seriously. Yet posters' inner trolls have prattled on about that extensively in this thread.

Go figure.

Vic
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

I think I willl opt for the least intrusive approach and state that cloaks must be aligned with command bursts as soon as possible and the modules be given a 5 hour charge capacity.

Baltec1
Wrong, my dear friend. Wrong in so many ways.

But thank you for sharing your opinion. It is always greatly appreciated.

Have to admit Jerghul has a ... umm... let's just say he's got his very own particular style for debate- but he does raise a valid point. More people in space is better.

(of course I agree cause I tried to raise that one myself, but nowhere near as efficient as Jerghul did. Just keep hammering it till it sticks, right?)

Basically put, EvE would be a better place if both the cloaker and the nullsec occupants would be at more risk. All this cloak and dagger stuff is dandy and nice but don't you want to shoot someone in the face just every once in a while? Pretty hard to do when one side is 99% safe and the other 98.5%. Reduce safety on all sides --never mind the lost ships left and right; it's supposed to be a spaceshooter aye?

Boils down to this:

* if locals have intel channels, they should be set up (in theory) to counter-attack whatever gang wants to play with them. (right now, posting eyes or having intel isn't even required. #TrueStory !)
* the cloaker can't cloak forever: he has ample time to make his move, but if he doesn't he ought to be at risk. Be it with a timer, or by being probeable doesn't matter- as long as he's not entirely safe everybody wins.
* if locals DO NOT have intel channels, I'd love to see some delayed local to give roaming gangs a chance.

More risk for everyone. Are you not entertained?

If that's what Jerghul is saying -- and he's trying to come up with the least intrusive option this time, far better than player-controlled gates blocking traffic and -- but essentially I hear a plea for more ships in space and less security for everyone involved. I can get behind this. More wrecks equals more fun.

Let's be honest here: the occasional retriever or Ishtar isn't all that expensive. Even if some are lost, it's not the end of the world. Same goes for the cloaky hunters: you can get a good one for 200-400 mil (depending on which is your poison of choice) and with the advantage of stealth and picking your own fights (mostly), that sort of evens out the odds.

If no Ishtars are at risk, and no Rapiers are at risk, ......... New Eden is a boring place man. Nobody likes to lose a ship but it's already replaced, ain't that so? More fights please, thanks.

Brokk
Thanks, bro.

I do think the least intrusive measure that fixes afk cloaky camping is the way to go. The underlying issue (why afk cloaky camping is bad) being that afk cloaky camping destroys content.

Charged based cloaks generate a lot of content opportunities that currently do not exist. The only downside is that whoever wants to afk cloaky camp has to be reasonably sure they will be at the keyboard at some point within the next 5 hours. Their bad if they get that wrong.

It may not be enough. But it certainly is a start.

baltec
Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I should remember copy paste is my friend at some point :).

Wrong, my dear friend. Though as always; feel free to have as many opinions as you like.

The biweekly single kill opportunity that arise at the afk cloaky camper convenience bleaken compared to the opportunities lost by afk cloaky campers keeping would be ratters docked up in the 100ds of hours interims between their kills.

Human error is the premier content provider in null-sec, buddy. But ships have to undock to make mistakes.

But we have been through these points a few times now. I remembered copy-paste is my friend :).

Baltec
My answer for goon space would be that if you think afk cloaky camping is effective deep in say goon space, then do that and remember to reload your cloak module every 5 hours.

Baltec
You are as afk as you want to be. I hate to use the word pathetic. But that is sort of what pops up when I consider the merits of your objection.

Log off if you are unwilling or unable to reload the cloaking module in 5 hours. You will still be in system the next time you log on.

But my perspective did shift away from "everything is fine" when Baltec started arguing AFK cloaking must exist. Couldn't believe what I saw- made a nice post about it, which got ignored. There is a big difference between accepting AFK cloaking as a temporary evil (and tabling the discussion until more details are released concerning the OA), and advocating it as a good thing.

Yea, local is due for an overhaul. I'm with ya on that one. I'd rather hear how you envision a better local / combo than explaining why things are as they are now. Charges for cloaks don't break anything but they also don't really fix much... a potential encounter when a cloaker forgets to retrigger is kinda like hoping the blops forgot to load fuel. Hilarious for sure- ayyy but you get the picture.

The possibility for mistakes to be made is always nice but we may have to think a little further and allow for the concept that developers will need to expand their programming. Substantial changes that address both local and cloaking.

My guess would be that Jerghul doesn't dare propose anything outrageous after the last load of flak he got for user-configurable stargates- an idea he borrowed from rolling wormholes. He tries to be cautious and conservative- whereas a better fix would indeed need to go beyond one-minute-of-coding solutions.

So .... what did you have in mind?

Sonya
I am sure some afk cloaky campers lack the emotional, physical, or mental fortitude to maximize their cloaked ship account screen every 5 hours. But they would belong to the minority.

Not if you shoot the OA that gives local when that is implemented, then you will simply be able to remove local rather than moan about it.

Get friends mate, if CCP are sensible they will make it so whenever it is active it can be shot and destroyed.

Nope, local is not what it is, it will be possible to take it down, no idea what you mean about cyno's, I also suggested modules that impacted the local OA creating a delay so people had to adjust their fits to get that advantage, again no free lunch for any one, in terms of cloaks I do not want an instant drop cloaks across all of the system and any affect should be temporary, it has to be something that takes effort and perseverance not some easy no cost and no effort event, I can see why you would find it a bit frightening.

The objective at the end of all this would be to increase the number of people operating in 0.0 so that people like Brokk can meet more people when roaming and that opening up a WH into null will result in some good fights, which is what everyone wants, don't they? Well maybe you don't, after all you do get your kicks from ganking so....

The problem actually starts and ends with afk cloaky camping.

Afk is fine (its punished one way or another in any sector of space)
Cloaky is fine.
Camping is fine.

The problem is that the combination of those 3 elements is extremely detrimental (defined here as killing activity). Its classical OP abuse. Things in combination have extremely undesirable effects.

Nerfing local would also kill activity (killing activity to stop killing activity is not a solution) and would have to be seen in conjuction with nerfing gates in any event.

Baltec
It happens because the mechanisms allow it to happen without cost. So we are gunning for that.

Already answered many, many times.

We want to get rid of the afk part of afk cloaky camping

ATK cloaky camping is incidentally at least as effective as afk cloaky camping. If you are willing to put in the effort. If unwilling, then sucks to be you I suppose.

You have the right to your opinion buddy. Its a very tired, old opinion, but you have every right to it.

Its been answered many times. Its a poor idea because it will kill activity in null sec (the whole point of killing afk cloaky camping is to increase activity).

Reversing the thought might work. By seeing that wormhole space is dead and allowing for player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel channel generators to be deployed. In effect allowing for the change you want in a sector of space that really needs some help.

You see? Answered again.

I prefer the direct approach to wiping out afk cloaky camping by making going afk in hostile null-sec space a really silly thing to do no matter if your ship is cloaked or uncloaked. Like it should be.

If you cannot put in the effort, then its not something worth doing. To get around intel provided by local; go to wormhole space. Your problem is solved.

ATK cloaky camp is a perfectly good counter to activity in a system for as long as you can be bothered to do it. Or go to wormhole space where local is not an issue if you prefer to play without local. Very few people like to play without local.

You see? Answered again. Either be ATK in nullsec, or do whatver in wormhole space that has the environment you want (no local).

Dead in sense that no one dies there. It has 10% of null-sec ship losses for a comparable number of systems. It needs a buff. Player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel structures may fit the ticket. But that is hardly a concern for this thread.

In sum: AFK anything is not an an acceptable counter to anything.

Anyway, this is boring. Am adding you to my blocked list.

Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.

Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.

This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.

More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses).

I disagree with that, the richer players are, the more likely they will take fun fights, all the cloaky AFK strategy does is make newer players who will like to fight to defend their space poor as hell or risk averse because they cannot afford their stuff, so they don't fight roamers and the only people who like it is rich entitled entities like PL and people like them who can do their assasination type kills and brag with their killboards...

Dracvlad
I agree.

I think there is a stong case to be made that ship losses are a function of time in space. The more time atk players spend undocked in null-sec for any reason (except afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is such a glaring exception to virtually any rule), the more ships will be lost.

A million ship hours undocked with see twice the kills as 500 000 ship hours undocked.

Afk cloak camping can easily be seen as part of an analysis of barriers that deflate total atk ship hours in space.

Which of course is a very strong argument for removing the afk portion of the equation.

I was in Saints Among Sinners an IT renter and we would fight roamers most of the time, when Galactic Emperor and I created Pirate Nation we rented from Atlas in Querious, we went after roamers for fun, we organised the other renters to such a degree that the Goons who were there to camp the renters went after Krysis because they were easier. I have plenty of kills on roamers and the like in Querious during that period. And what happened, the CFC sent in two alliances to remove us from our space and they could not do that either. I have lived as a small alliance and done this while you were can flipping...

We made ISK from our space to enable us to do that ...

No there will be more people willing and able to kick ass.

Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.

FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.

Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.

I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.

The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space.