Wander
You are not really the choir I am preaching to. Shall we simply agree to disagree?

Cloaked ships are NOT that powerful. Even the stratios which might be a tad OP given that it can cloak and thus lurk up on the unaware ratter in NS is still not that powerful.

I have done Black Ops fleets that have imploded subcap class ships. About 15 people or so, it's equal to a dread's DPS with ewar and perfect tracking. One real crappy thing is the major limitation on where covert cynos can be lit.

Also, this thread does have some interesting posts concerning only doing one of the two things. Either only removing AFK cloaking or only removing local. I just wanted to stress the connection between these two things along with the OA and modules affecting cloaks/local listing. This turns intel into a commodity instead of a constant and opens up many new strategic, logistical, and social opportunities. I am kind of at a loss as to what is the most balanced method to achieving the AFK cloaking solution. Do you just require ships to have fuel for cloaks or create a new cloak hunting aspect? I do know what I want to happen with local player listing though.

Stealth bombers are also paper thin and against a heavier class of ship with similar numbers will find that DPS no longer near dreadnought DPS as your ships are alpha'd off the field. My point was that if a group is being driven off one-by-one by a cloaking gang...they are doing it wrong.

Funny how you kept saying that over and over and now, you shift gears and mention a method to catch active cloaked pilots.

Paper thin but they have to be locked first and within web range. Not all ships will survive that 15 second lock time.

Tekos
The DA array is simply a much better idea if we limit the scope to afk cloaky camping.

Or a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes to avoid being decloaked.

The thing that annoys me about the OA is that is masks the afk cloaky camping issue by superimposing a far worse psychological effect on the area of space afflicted by the mechanism.

The OA also creates the impression that Eve space is empty

The OA cannot be reasonably introduced without also giving player control over gates

The OA suggestion is entirely lore base unless it was meant as a mechanical solution for all of Eve space.

The OA is entirely off topic and you have raised it in this thread more than 30 times. The actual thread for the topic has only a few posts.

I am reporting it as off-topic spam. In addition to other violations of forum rules.

Summary of my position

Afk cloaky camping is an established multiple account entitlement.

It is hugely disproportionate as it allows an afk pilot to significantly impact on the behaviour of many active players
It is not duplicable by the average player with x-month seniority;
The afk subscription is invariably funded by ingame resources.
It gives 4/4 invulnerability (undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe)
It discourages ingame activity and ultimately impacts on player retention (the average x-month old player quitting after y-months).

Its sole redeeming feature is how it impacts on other forms of afk behaviour. This suggest that measures targeting afk cloaky camping should target the afk component and that an audit should primarily consider other forms of afk behaviour.

The best way to resolve the afk cloaky camping issue is by introducing a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless a pilot actively intervenes to remain cloaked. Mechanisms of this type include giving cloak modules a charge requirement, or introducing a citadel based module that will decloak a vessel unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes.

Any measure need only be nominally effective as human error inherent to afk will assure sufficient impact.

Or a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes to avoid being decloaked.

The thing that annoys me about the OA is that is masks the afk cloaky camping issue by superimposing a far worse psychological effect on the area of space afflicted by the mechanism.

The OA also creates the impression that Eve space is empty

The OA cannot be reasonably introduced without also giving player control over gates

The OA suggestion is entirely lore base unless it was meant as a mechanical solution for all of Eve space.

It is hugely disproportionate as it allows an afk pilot to significantly impact on the behaviour of many active players
It is not duplicable by the average player with x-month seniority;
The afk subscription is invariably funded by ingame resources.

It gives 4/4 invulnerability (undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe)

It discourages ingame activity and ultimately impacts on player retention (the average x-month old player quitting after y-months).

Its sole redeeming feature is how it impacts on other forms of afk behaviour. This suggest that measures targeting afk cloaky camping should target the afk component and that an audit should primarily consider other forms of afk behaviour.

The best way to resolve the afk cloaky camping issue is by introducing a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless a pilot actively intervenes to remain cloaked. Mechanisms of this type include giving cloak modules a charge requirement, or introducing a citadel based module that will decloak a vessel unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes.

Any measure need only be nominally effective as human error inherent to afk will assure sufficient impact.

Maria
42. 42 players are impacted for every afk cloaky camper.

Maria
42. 42 players are impacted for every afk cloaky camper. Do you need the source, or do you know the reference? You may otherwise assume exactly what you like.

There are lots of hoops you can jump through to ID which of a player's subscriptions are pvp, and which are afk cloaky campers. None of which are enjoyable, or contribute to the game in a positive manner.

Yes, we know that the average x-month old player is the one actually paying real money for the established player's afk cloaky camping subscription. We can call it The pay to lose model if you like.

I know how cloaks work. And how bookmarks work for that matter. Careful with that tack, you are almost in adhom territory.

I was not speaking of new players. I was speaking of the average player. Who is way younger than you think.

Citadels are going to replace pos bubbles. But feel free to create a thread on that topic if you like.

Maria
Adjusted raw data from Steam. Its against forum rules and off-topic to pontificate too much about these things however. As you would find out quickly if you created a thread on the topic.

Teckos
You have the right to your opinion of course.

The first bulk seems to go to disputing that afk cloaky camping is even a thing. It is a thing. Surprisingly given how fundamentally unreasonable it is. So hopefully not a thing for much longer.

Suggesting there is an opportunity cost to afk cloaky camping masks how established players generate income. It is of course entirely possible to do things that would have an opportunity cost (multiboxing for isk in one way or another), but those are time limited and allow for afk cloaky camping when multi boxing is not taking place. In addition to scamming alts, margin trading alts, and passive income collecting alts. All of which have finite duration activity - allowing afk cloaky camping to take place when other alts on that subscription are not doing their thing actively.

You can list many behavioural changes you think players should make because of afk cloaky camping. It just underlines that afk cloaky camping does impact on the behaviour of many.

You did not quite understand what I meant by "only redeeming feature" That is ok. You are not really my target audience.

The mechanism should not impact on non-afk pilots. It might, but I am merely outlining what the mechanism should resemble conceptually. The Devs can figure out the nuts and bolts.

Tekos, I get that it is an established multiple account entitlement, but that does not make it right, nor does it follow that losing the entitlement should entail some form of compensation.

Maria
Adjusted raw data from Steam. Its against forum rules and off-topic to pontificate too much about these things however. As you would find out quickly if you created a thread on the topic.

Teckos
No. Everything does not. Afk cloaky camping fills downtime between activity with other alts on that subscription. 0 opportunity cost of managed well.

0 opportunity cost is inherent to the afk portion. IF ATK, then opportunity cost is incurred.

Maria
You do not need the data. The Devs do and they have NDA access. But it is easy enough to replicate. Go to steam gauge to read generalized player characteristics (how often/long do the play a game they have bought on steam), then correlate with the specifics for Eve online to see if it corresponds. Eliminate trial accounts by deducting median from the average. Bobs your uncle.

You can report this post if you like. It sorts under rumourmongering and should be deleted.

Teckos
No. Everything does not. Afk cloaky camping fills downtime between activity with other alts on that subscription. 0 opportunity cost of managed well.

What about bits of space where one cannot anchor a citadel?