Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To add on what you say, and comment on the bolded. The funny thing is, replace cloak with "docking in station", and the cloakers have the same arguement. All a pve'r has to do is dock with unlimited invulnerability. This is too easy. Perhaps we should be able to sabotage station docking by using a "hack" tool to jettison random players from station.

Same principle as those wanting to nerf cloaks.

Could you imagine the tears?

I could but I'd have a seizure :) . I'm a PVE player mostly (I consider going on alliance CTA fleets paying my dues for having access to ratting space lol) but i'm not so selfish that I desire a change to the game that affects the people who try (and mostly fail) to explode me.

That's actually to base of my disagreement about the anti-afk cloaking ideas I hear. As it stands now, there is a balance. The afk cloaker can do one thing and people like me can mitigate what they do. If you tip that balance one way or another you create an imbalance and that's bad for any game.

The "give me some way to attack afk cloakers" people probably don't realize it, but they are asking for the balance to be tipped in their favor, and that's wrong.

You keep addressing this tactic of defending the access point, but i havent yet heard you explain why a T1 cloak needs to be a perfect safety net for all ships the the lowly rookie ship to the most massive titan. Please try and compare that to whatever highsec whining you've heard.

And it's somewhat ironic that you say my whining about effort is something only a carebear would say, but as soon as someone suggests it on the other end its a perfectly ok mechanic. How dare I demand that there be gameplay involved. So absurd.

And before you drag this argument where it doesn't matter, lets get back on the topic of cloaks and how they offer virtually perfect safety on practically every ship with a highslot. It doesnt matter how they got there. It really doesnt.

How about you consider this. Should capitals (namely supers) be allowed to cloak indefinitely and guarantee they dont risk anything until they are ready? Regardless of the hostility or friendliness of the system?

The current system is the exact definiton of binary. Binary is not fun when it is this extreme.

So you wouldn't mind having the old logoff timers back would you? since every ship can do it and I shouldnt care what other people are risking? You're risght, CCP doesnt want to provide easy targets for me, so bringing that back only makes sense. Hell, lets bring back even more mechanics! POS bowling, escaping concord, grid-wide doomsdays. Since CCP doesnt want to give anyone easy kills and I shouldnt care what other people are risking. Fair enough.

Also since we seem to believe my obsession with what other people risk is also fudamentally wrong, why do you care what highsecers whine when they get ganked or when null-bears want to risk less?

After all, considering that would be fundamentally wrong.

What isn't fun? the game? or the fact that there is something that proves to provide very little content outside of the meta to people? Or maybe you had something else in mind.

Nikk.
Point 1. Already disproven. Try again.
Point 2. Has no bearing on the argument that a cloaky camper has 100% safety in a system. Try again.

Jenn
You can say I am wrong and that is fine, but my stance is clear and always has been.
As for selfish. No, I dont see leveling the playing field as selfish, especially not given how often this topic has come up.

I have stated my case and I feel rather well. So far no argument has been offered that is comparable to the 100% safety a cloak offers once a ship is in system.

Oh indeed?

Point 1, in which I point out that other forms of avoidance are comparable to cloaking, so much so that they are OFTEN compared to cloaking.
(This in rebuttal to your claim they could not be compared)
The fact that such comparisons continue to appear seems to confirm my argument.
Saying you have dis-proven a recurring event seems inaccurate.

Point 2, a cloaky camper is only safe so long as no pilot error occurs.
In the same sense, a docked, POS sitting, or logged off player is also quite safe.
This is not 100%, since as you like to point out, kill mails of covert shipping does indeed exist.

As to leveling a playing field, and excepting for carelessness and error on the players part, exactly how much risk should PvE have in friendly sov null space?
A hostile player already has no means of forcing a confrontation with a PvE player in this context, so any further improvement in that direction would simply remove the hostile player entirely.

They are allowed to blow up a PvE ship, which they effectively cannot catch by their own efforts alone,
BUT
They cannot stick around and bluff about being able to do so.

And you would call this a level playing field?

What, you have him equipped with not just a cloak, but apparently psychic abilities too?

He just HAPPENED to become active at the precise moment the PvE players undocked... what amazing good timing this player has!

Let's be honest, in all likelihood, one of these is the truth:
1: He was never AFK at all. Though tedious and possibly mind numbing, he was watching patiently the whole time for activity, and was either prepared directly or had equally patient friends too.
That is some impressive effort, don't begrudge him that kill mail.

2: The PvE players were active for a considerable period, and eventually the cloaked player happened to check on things, and discovered them deep in the ISK grinding. He then contacts his friends, (they are still grinding all this time), and pops out on them.
Those PvE guys were shamelessly guilty of pilot error, not taking precautions with a known hostile present.
They did NOT need to stay docked, but they should have arranged to be flying something at least hard to kill, if not having friends handy to back them up.
There is no reason why the PvE players hould not have scored a kill mail or two of their own, unless they were min/max fit for ISK alone.




If you make equal effort a requirement on both sides, that is fine.

Keep in mind, however, that keeping friends handy is not expected by either side in this, so how sustainable is the level of effort you are pushing?
(Hint, you will see the forums hit by complaints about PvE being too much effort....)

So what you want CCP to do would ONLY affect that one aspect of the game right?

See what I said: Short-sighted. You can't change one thing in an interconnected game environment and expect it to not affect others. There are unintended consequences to every action. if you don't take those actions into account, you end up messing up more than you 'fix'.

Many suggestions have been made that would only effect that aspect of the game. They are in this thread.

Delegate. If you are refering to "I have to sit on my hands and just hope the camper wishes to leave at some point." and trying to imply that I just sit in station till the threat leaves. If you look a couple posts down, I did state that I was talking about not being to engage the camper.