open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked AFK stealth bullying - redesigning the cloak
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

FarosWarrior
Amarr
Pure Dutch Damage Corp
Care Factor
Posted - 2010.07.21 09:20:00 - [271]
 

AFK cloaking is just another form of psychological warfare which has been around about as long as the normal warfare.

Next people are going to say that we can't eject ships from our WH POS ship maint array because they are scared when all of the sudden 20 ships appear, and only 1 of them is piloted by the smart one that ejects all the ships to chase away the intruders (this tactic works nicely btw)

Zackgar
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2010.07.21 11:09:00 - [272]
 

ITT: BAAAAWWWWWW!

TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.07.21 14:20:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 21/07/2010 14:21:11
Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 21/07/2010 14:20:40
I love afk cloaking. Cloak in enemy ratting system whilst i do work or play dwarf fortress, every now and then you go out and gank someone to keep the fear factor up. Ruining your game, without even playing the game Very Happy

Remove local would be better, then i can REALLY have some fun. I love cloaking ships, uncloaking in a stealth recon next to some guy is the best thing ever.

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2010.07.21 19:19:00 - [274]
 

"AFK Stealth Bullying" makes me crack up every time I see the thread title.

"Help help! An invisible man is bullying me!"

LOL

Vee Raa
Minmatar
Cadre Assault Force
Posted - 2010.07.21 19:22:00 - [275]
 

get your cloaking tutorial --> here

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.22 00:37:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing

I love afk cloaking. Cloak in enemy ratting system whilst i do work or play dwarf fortress, every now and then you go out and gank someone to keep the fear factor up. Ruining your game, without even playing the game Very Happy


I bolded the important part.

Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing

Remove local would be better, then i can REALLY have some fun. I love cloaking ships, uncloaking in a stealth recon next to some guy is the best thing ever.


Exactly why removing local is a cloaking boost and would not help balance things at all.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.22 07:26:00 - [277]
 

instead of nerfing cloaks just remove the local, its the primary reason for afk cloaking after all. Then the whine will end finally.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.22 14:34:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
instead of nerfing cloaks just remove the local, its the primary reason for afk cloaking after all. Then the whine will end finally.


I'm not looking to nerf the cloak. I wouldn't want to deny any of you badasses out there the opportunity to prove your ultimate superiority against a mining barge.

I'm proposing a way to deal with AFK cloakers.

Being able to scan down a cloaker using the method I proposed would take some time and effort -- enough time and effort on the part of the searcher(s) that anyone who was active and moving would remain as effectively immune as they are now.

Local is not the primary reason for the afk cloak. You could achieve the same effect by manually entering a system once per day, warping around for a bit, scanning some things down, and then leaving after a while. Same net result: The unwary and inexperienced players will stop being alarmed by your presence and bring out/stay in their combat-weak ships. And there you go, killer, you have your easy targets.

You want local removed so that everyone will be forced to play the game the way you want it played.

Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.22 18:39:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

I'm not looking to nerf the cloak. I wouldn't want to deny any of you badasses out there the opportunity to prove your ultimate superiority against a mining barge.

I'm proposing a way to deal with AFK cloakers.


That may be your intent, but what you propose will affect non-AFK cloak users as well. This effect will have a negative impact on the operation of cloaked ships in any role they may be used for. This is a nerf whether you want to call it that or not.

Originally by: Mackenna
Being able to scan down a cloaker using the method I proposed would take some time and effort -- enough time and effort on the part of the searcher(s) that anyone who was active and moving would remain as effectively immune as they are now.


Leading to a situation where your scanning alts chase a cloaker for as long as you wish, with little to no risk at all to themselves. However the cloaker is now completely neutralised, with practically no way to engage in any combat ( if that is their intention) whatsoever.
Congratulations, you have just come up with possibly the best way to make several dedicated cloaking ships utterly useless in anything other than overwhelming numbers. Potentially making solo bombers/ recons obsolete and subsequently making 0.0 ratting/ plexing pretty much completely secure.

Not to mention this would lead to some of the most boring game-play I could imagine, for both the bomber and the person hunting it.

You may feel I'm being a little "doom and gloom" over your proposal, but it is hard to view this as anything other than an idea designed solely to provide almost 100% safe ratting etc. in any given system.

Originally by: Mackenna
Local is not the primary reason for the afk cloak. You could achieve the same effect by manually entering a system once per day, warping around for a bit, scanning some things down, and then leaving after a while. Same net result: The unwary and inexperienced players will stop being alarmed by your presence and bring out/stay in their combat-weak ships. And there you go, killer, you have your easy targets.


AFK cloaking is almost entirely the result of instant-update local. It is the most logical and effective way to render local less effective as a source of intel. Attempting to deny this is somewhat naive.

As a cloak user, and one that does not in fact use AFK cloaking as a primary tactic, I would be happy to trade "complete" security for the removal of Local in 0.0. I'm quite capable of working for a kill, and also quite happy to work to remain "safe". But only if my potential targets have to work for their "safety".
At this time all you need to be 100% secure in 0.0 is one person on vent/ ts watching local like a hawk, this grants a level of immunity to attack that by any realistic standard is far too high. Not even cloaks grant that level of "safety", after all the cloaker has to get to your system, through however many camps you and your allies care to run. Not impossible, but far riskier than ratting in a secure system that you never need to leave for any reason whatsoever (short of full-scale war).

Originally by: Mackenna
You want local removed so that everyone will be forced to play the game the way you want it played.


You want local to stay and cloaks to be nerfed so that everyone will be forced to play the game the way you want it to be played.
There is a word for that, starts with an "H"Wink

By all means make cloaked ships detectable in "some" way, but get rid of local intel so you are never entirely sure when to go looking.
Risk for both.
Effort for both.
Success for the smartest.

Now that sounds like EVE to meCool

Peace.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.22 20:19:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: Mackenna

I'm not looking to nerf the cloak. I wouldn't want to deny any of you badasses out there the opportunity to prove your ultimate superiority against a mining barge.

I'm proposing a way to deal with AFK cloakers.


lool you know the meaning of the word "nerfing"? Its exactly what you intend! Stop behaving as if afk cloaking were a bad thing, its the only thing you can do about local, as long as the local remains, no afk cloaking nerfs will be made hopefully.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.22 22:12:00 - [281]
 

Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.

Your appearance in local does not make you any more vulnerable than any other pilot in the system.

Clicking on your name in local doesn't allow me to warp to you.

It doesn't take a cloaking device to counter local. A safe spot will do just as well. If local were the only intel-gathering method we had, no one would need to cloak.

Probes and directional scanners are what the cloaking device counters.

Demanding that local be removed has nothing to do with Cloaking...and if you say you would be happy to have cloaks removed if local goes with it, it means you're actively nerfing yourselves.. Local doesn't make you attackable.. scanners do.

I don't support the removal or nerfing of the cloak of any active pilot. What I have proposed is a method for allowing a single person or a team to scan down someone who hasn't moved in hours.

Don't believe me? Think I'm trying to nerf all cloakers? Here's the math:

1,000,000 possible frequencies that could be used.

No results on the scanner until you're within .100 of the exact frequency.

It takes 30 seconds to return results from the system scanner.

Assuming you're smart enough to then enter your queries at intervals of .1 at a time (xxxx.100, xxxx.200, xxxx.300 etc) your chances of even getting a signal are 1/10,0000

If I got a team of 10 people together to do this, each person still only has a 1/1,000 chance of even getting a signal on your cloaked ship.

And even when a scanner does get a signal, there are up to 99 more frequencies to cycle through before the cloaker can be engaged.

What does that equate to in terms of time investment?

With 10 people each scanning a block of 1,000 frequencies, it could still take up to 8 1/3 hours to find a cloaker. ( 1,000 x 30 = 30,000 secs or 8.33 hours. )

Can someone win the lottery and find a signal the first try? Sure. Again, the chances are 1/10,000 The chances of hitting it exactly are 1/1,000,000

What can the cloaker do to combat this? Change frequencies. As proposed, the cloaked pilot would have to wait 30 seconds before the new frequency went active. That's it.

I'd even be in favor of a warning that pops up on the Cloaked Pilot's screen, warning them that an incoming scan on their frequency has been detected.

and there you go... no active pilot with half of a working brain would ever be caught unless they were about as unlucky as someone who is bumped out of cloak at a safe spot.


Xorv
Posted - 2010.07.22 23:43:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Abbot Laarkin

AFK cloaking is almost entirely the result of instant-update local. It is the most logical and effective way to render local less effective as a source of intel. Attempting to deny this is somewhat naive.



Awesome post Abbot, and the quoted part above bears repeating as clearly some people are still in denial of this fact.

Remove Local Chat, and if there's a real issue with afk cloakers after that's done, then and only then should we bother discussing the possibility of a means of detecting idle/afk cloaked ships.


PS. where is this Black Star Alliance? I've never done much AFK cloaking, but I'm rapidly developing a strong desire to do so from reading some of the posts in this thread.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.23 00:23:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.


the relationship is very clear for people who knows why one afk cloak - for rendering local as intel useless. If afk cloaking were not possible, the local would say always the truth - that there is one who's not afk.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.23 03:21:00 - [284]
 

Removing local would be hilarious, because in about an hour all the nubblets who cried for it to be removed would be back crying for it to come back.

Have fun chaining through systems with 50 belts looking for someone who may or may not be there!

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.23 05:12:00 - [285]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 23/07/2010 05:13:44
Originally by: Voith
Removing local would be hilarious, because in about an hour all the nubblets who cried for it to be removed would be back crying for it to come back.

Have fun chaining through systems with 50 belts looking for someone who may or may not be there!


hey dude, it was just a logical conclusion from me to remove the local together with nerfing cloaks, because they interrelate with each other. There is no another big reason for afk cloaking beyond instant local revealing your presence to hostiles immediately.

If you want to kill people who instantly hide when you enter local, you have no choice to stay there forever cloaked afk and hoping they "get used" to you... or simply dont do anything anymore (often referred as "locking down a system").

Quixis
Posted - 2010.07.23 10:27:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.


So let's recap, weak minded and not very bright.

Are you sure 0.0 is for you?

Fumitsugu
Posted - 2010.07.23 10:45:00 - [287]
 

Released: Images of an AFK cloaker in his natural habitat.

Does he look dangerous to YOU?

Suppose he should have splashed out for a CovOps cloak though.

Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.23 12:49:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Quixis
Originally by: Mackenna
Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.

BLACK STAR ALLIANCE


So let's recap, weak minded and not very bright.

Are you sure 0.0 is for you?


Well 0.0 is surely not for that alliance, but with current mechanic for sov, its very unlikely they ever gonne get removed beside by "Failcascade" ... so much for the "right hand of IT"


But I should thank him for proving the point made by every sane person in every thread with people complaining about cloak ...

Mainly the people complainging dont understand the relationship between the need for AFK cloak and local, while people who actually "afk cloak" all point out that if it wasnt for the instant-free ultimate intel that local provide they wouldnt use the tactic in hope of disrupting the now "very easy" life in 0.0

I mean ... its safer to make isk in a full officer fit golem in 0.0 than it is in high Sec ... So 0.0 is probably a go for them ... cause you know ... they want ultimate safety right ... Rolling Eyes

Valadeya

159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.07.23 12:50:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.


Wrong, the reason you know there's a potential AFK cloacker in system, is because you see his name in local and can't find him anywhere with probes. If there were no local, you wouldn't be aware of another player ( unless if you had an alt checking the gates ) with you in system so you wouldn't know if there were an AFK cloacker.

Originally by: Mackenna
Your appearance in local does not make you any more vulnerable than any other pilot in the system.


Agreed, but the appearance of another player in local gives you extra security. Suppose you're ratting / plexing / mining ... in a system with local without scouts in adjecent systems ( silly, I'll give you that ) you can warp out as soon as someone enters systems because he appears in local. If there were no local, how would you know someone entered system?
Moreover, the newly arrived hunter doesn't know you're there, so he'll need to drop probes to check if the system has active players. And you can keep an eye on your scanner to see if probes are dropped so you can gtfo. This makes it more difficult for pray and hunter, but if the pray is smart he'll gain the upperhand.

Originally by: Mackenna
It doesn't take a cloaking device to counter local. A safe spot will do just as well. If local were the only intel-gathering method we had, no one would need to cloak.


I can probe a safespot, I can't probe a cloaker. So not good enough.
And local may not be the only intel-gathering method, it sure as hell is an easy, cheap, fast and reliable one.

Originally by: Mackenna
Probes and directional scanners are what the cloaking device counters.


Don't exactly understand your point here. Are you saying that cloaking 'kills' probing?

Originally by: Mackenna
Demanding that local be removed has nothing to do with Cloaking...and if you say you would be happy to have cloaks removed if local goes with it, it means you're actively nerfing yourselves.. Local doesn't make you attackable.. scanners do.


Wrong, see previous wall of text. Don't want cloaks removed, I do want local removed in 0.0, it should be a lawless space where intel-gathering is more difficult that the current situation. Yep, removing local = nerfing myself, but it'll also nerf you, so don't really care about that. Local ALONE doesn't make you attackable, scanners ALONE don't make you attackable. It's a combination of factors. And local is a very big factor, making it too easy.

Originally by: Mackenna
I don't support the removal or nerfing of the cloak of any active pilot. What I have proposed is a method for allowing a single person or a team to scan down someone who hasn't moved in hours.


And yet you'll also be able to probe down ( utterly stupid ) active cloakers. Srry, can't agree with that.



Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.23 13:44:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Cloaking and Local have no relationship. None.


I honestly can't believe that any reasonably intelligent, or observant, player could actually make this statement with a straight face. Are you perchance a Troll?

Originally by: Mackenna
Your appearance in local does not make you any more vulnerable than any other pilot in the system.


Your appearance in Local provides "free" information that denies the use of true "stealth" tactics. Local chat is a huge obstacle to covert ships and operations. It is the lynch-pin of current defence strategy amongst 0.0 PvE'ers and to a lesser degree PvP'ers alike. It is free, it requires no effort, It is 100% accurate and infallible (barring a certain well-publicised exploit, that has afaik been fixed) and that to my mind runs counter to the underlying principles of Eve.

If you wish to secure systems for your own use you should be required to work, pay for, or in some other way, earn that intel. So to should anyone invading "your" space for whatever reason. I would also support favouring the defenders in some manner when it came to the balance of effort required, this would be the pay-off for taking and holding a system long enough to gain sov.

Originally by: Mackenna
Probes and directional scanners are what the cloaking device counters.


Indeed you are perfectly correct, now however you wish to introduce a counter-counter. What next, a counter-counter-counter?Smile
AFK-cloaking is a tactic specifically designed to counter instant- update Local not as a counter against probes or scanners.

If you dislike cloaks that is fair enough. But do not use a tactic designed for a specific reason as the basis for an argument against a module, while you actively ignore the very reason for the development of that tactic. This makes you look a little silly, and actively undermines your entire argument.

Originally by: Mackenna
Demanding that local be removed has nothing to do with Cloaking...and if you say you would be happy to have cloaks removed if local goes with it, it means you're actively nerfing yourselves.. Local doesn't make you attackable.. scanners do.


Remove local, add a well though out method by which cloaks may be defeated utilising skill, intelligence and determination (not random number-crunching) and CCP would get my whole-hearted support. The current situation is imperfect, but a natural conclusion of the interplay between two poorly thought out and developed mechanics.

Imho Local, cloaks, probing, and scanners all need to be looked at simultaneously. They are intrinsically linked and any attempt to adjust one without paying careful attention to the others is likely to lead to even more problems.

This is not going to be a quick-fix, any attempt to consider it as such is unhelpful and ill-informed.


Peace.


Abbot Laarkin
Order Of Mystical Mountain Monks
Posted - 2010.07.23 14:10:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Voith
Removing local would be hilarious, because in about an hour all the nubblets who cried for it to be removed would be back crying for it to come back.

Have fun chaining through systems with 50 belts looking for someone who may or may not be there!


Like I care what "nubblets" want in 0.0.

Scouts...good scouts. Recruit some, train some, use some.

There will be targets, scouts will find them. Then the killing startsTwisted Evil
A little effort never hurt anyone.

Any intelligent 0.0 corp will also be using scouts/ camps etc. to defend their space. Stupid and/ or careless ones won't, guess who's gonna get burned?


Peace.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.23 16:44:00 - [292]
 

There is no relationship between Cloaking and Local. I'm well aware that many of you "AFK Cloak" because of "insta-update" local. While you choose to do so and cite local as your reason, that does not mean that a relationship does in fact exist.

Being visible in local does not force you to cloak, because it takes more than being visible in local chat to be vulnerable to attack.
Probes and Scanners allow enemies to actually find you and engage you. Local does not.

Conversely, cloaking does not remove you from local. It hides you from probes and scanners.

There is no relationship.



159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.07.23 18:14:00 - [293]
 

Mackena, explain me: why do we always talk about afk cloaking in 0.0 space and not in WH space?

That's right, because the lack of local removes the AFK cloaker problem. So unless you can show me how you can know that there are AFK cloakers in your WH I'll keep saying:
Remove local => no more AFK cloaking problem

or, if you're trolling, I'll join you:
Remove cloak => no more AFK cloaking problem

Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.23 18:51:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
There is no relationship between Cloaking and Local. I'm well aware that many of you "AFK Cloak" because of "insta-update" local. While you choose to do so and cite local as your reason, that does not mean that a relationship does in fact exist.

Being visible in local does not force you to cloak, because it takes more than being visible in local chat to be vulnerable to attack.
Probes and Scanners allow enemies to actually find you and engage you. Local does not.

Conversely, cloaking does not remove you from local. It hides you from probes and scanners.

There is no relationship.

BLAC STAR ALLLIANCE





re·la·tion
A logical or natural association between two or more things; relevance of one to another; connection



Tl;Dr: the tactic of AFK Cloaking primary and core objective is not to hide from probe and scanner, its to diminish the effect of "insta-update" local

BALANCED


For long explanation:


Being visible in local mean the defender gain knowledge of the attacker being there without any actual work.


Because of this knowledge, defender can easely respond in multiple ways, including probe, scanner, docking, baits, etc ...


To give itself a fighting chance of having thing his way, because of initial advantage of the defender, the attacker need to resort to a tactic "equally without any actual work" called AFK Cloaking


Therefore the primary objective of the tactic of AFK Cloaking is to allow the attacker to diminish the effect of Being visible in local.


Conclusion: Both element of the relation , AFK CLOAKing and local involve the similar amount of actual work;


AFK CLOAKing, require the user to risk his ship while traveling trought stargates, mean safety while put into final position

local, require the user to keep it open and be ready to react to the entrance or presence of a "red or neutral", mean safety if used properly


Both tactic share similar amount of risk and work : BALANCED

Valadeya



Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.23 18:58:00 - [295]
 


Everyone here who regularly goes AFK in WH-Space, without the benefit of either a PoS force field or a cloaking device, please raise your hand. I (and I'm sure many others) would love to know who you are.





Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.23 20:44:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Valadeya uthanaras

re·la·tion
A logical or natural association between two or more things; relevance of one to another; connection



[Citation Needed]

I don't know where you found this definition but, by your own provided definition, your assertion fails.

The relationship that you're trying to pass off as "logical" and "natural" is actually "conceptual".

I don't care that you do "A" because you don't like "B". It doesn't change the fact that "A" and "B" have no impact on each other.

You can write pages and pages of posts about how much you hate Local Chat's insta-update and blame it for every evil you face in life, but it won't change the following, immutable facts:

  • You cannot be engaged in combat via Local Chat, cloaked or not.

  • You can be engaged by enemies if they scan you down.

  • You cannot be scanned successfully if you are cloaked.

  • You can be engaged by enemies if you are forced out of cloak via proximity to a celestial/enemy craft or by activating a module within range of an enemy.

  • You cannot remove your name from Local Chat by engaging a cloaking device.



Those are the rules, as they apply to Local Chat vs. Cloaking Devices. If you read them, you'll notice that no where in the list will you find one place where your cloaking device affects your listing in Local Chat nor will you find one example where your name in Local Chat will impede your ability to remain immune to attack via a cloaking device.

Your cloaking device was designed to counter scanners and probes. It has no effect on your visibility in local.

Local chat was designed to show everyone, at a glance, who is in a local system. It has no effect on cloaking whatsoever.

They are, therefore, not Logically or Naturally related to each other. You cannot "Diminish the effects of local" when local already has no effect on your cloak. Local obviously has some effect on your conclusion that you're supposed to be a 100% super-undetectable-ninja-ship-of-death, but that's your own deranged conception of the game. It simply isn't designed that way at this time.

While we're visiting the subject of your refusal to acknowledge the actual design of the game, consider this: Local chat only provides one item of usable intel: A pilot is in the system. If local were removed, you'd soon be crying about gate watchers, who could provide more info about you than Local does. (namely, what you're flying and which celestial you were pointed at when you showed up on grid momentarily while switching between gate-cloak and cloaking device, if any).

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.23 21:24:00 - [297]
 

If one causes other, there is a causal relation, so if you are too dense to get it, STFU and go away.

Eno Lacigol
Amarr
QQ Continuum
Posted - 2010.07.23 21:39:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Local chat was designed to show everyone, at a glance, who is in a local system. It has no effect on cloaking whatsoever.


You have pervasively said your ok with active players who are cloaked, and your beef is with the afk players who are cloaked,making it so people cant rat in peace. I don't support removing local, or changing anything in regard to cloaks as I think they are fine atm, but to ignore how local affects the situation is burying your head in the sand.

You can not be bullied if you don't know the bully is there. Local lets you know someone who wants to kill you is in local, something d-scan and probes will not do if he is cloaked.

That said, if someone is afk cloak bullying you, take the proper measures to counter it. Travel and do activity's in a group. Form a proper gang to respond to him if and when he chooses to go in for a kill. If he is cloaked and looking for a easy target, he will not find one and move on. If he doesn't move on, he wont be able to take you out with out alone, and barring a cov op cyno hot drop, your alliance should be able to warn of an incoming gang.

tl;dr: Cloaks are fine

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.07.23 21:41:00 - [299]
 

the local was actually designed for smacking, not for intel. So what now?

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.07.23 21:42:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
If one causes other, there is a causal relation, so if you are too dense to get it, STFU and go away.


People who live and operate in wormholes still cloak, yet there is no auto-update in local.

If local were removed, people would still hang out in enemy sov territory cloaked and afk.

But sure, I'll note that within the context of Robert Caldera's World, cloaking is caused by local chat.





Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (16)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only