Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If we are going to be objective, anyone who sincerely believes what they say or type is not lying.
They MIGHT be wrong, but lying is specific to a deliberate attempt to knowingly give false information.

Is a cloaked player safer than a ratter?
There is no useful comparison, without framing this inside of meaningful context.

Ok, is the cloaked player safer than the ratter, during the time where the cloaked player is still in the process of arriving at the system in question?
No.
In point of fact, the ratter is only dealing with NPC threats, for which it can be expected they are prepared. They are killing them for ISK, so beating them predictably is the primary requirement for this.
The Cloaked player, assuming the use of covert hull and module, must contend with all gate camps and roams that are using far more adaptable and dangerous threats, that being other players.
The fitting for such a ship to have a better chance at penetration, must either sacrifice more in fighting ability, and / or ISK cost.
A sacrifice in fighting ability has obvious consequences, while a sacrifice in ISK cost often makes the ship cost ineffective to risk.

What about once the Cloaked ship arrives in the same system?
This is completely under player control, and there is no correct or simple answer that can fairly respond here.
The cloaked player, assuming they did not get really lucky and find their target totally unprepared, will be hidden.
The PvE player, will have ceased to still be that same PvE player. (You are what you undock in, and they typically are docked at this point).
Now the waiting begins, and it is expected that meaningful time must pass, so one or both parties expects that their unseen counterpart has stopped paying attention.

What happens as time passes, and the suspicion of being AFK begins to grow?
The cloaked player may very well have given up, but if they actually left the system, their exit as well as their future return would simply restart this cycle, in pointless repetition.
The cloaked player knows if they stay, and the PvE player risks exposure at the wrong time, he will have an opportunity to encounter this target.

The PvE player only needs to hedge their bluff.
They can undock in a PvP ship, and strut around pointlessly. The cloaked player won't risk engaging something that is both cheaper and probably able to fight better than their own craft. They did not make the effort to reach this system just to throw away their efforts on a bad gamble.
In order to draw out the cloaked player, and survive, they need to resume activity in a way that lets them keep playing.
This means getting a defensive fit, most likely capable of withstanding attack long enough to be bailed out by allies.

The cloaked player, and the PvE player, are both bluffing at this point.
Both want the other to believe they have friends waiting to help them.
Both know that these friends are not always available, and that most of the time they are alone.

This is a mind game, psychological warfare pure and simple.
And it is far more hardcore than many other games will ever be.

The intel deprivation counter to local argument is an insufficient argument in terms of weight to both encouraging players to login but not actually interact with the game, and the idea of assets in space being at risk.

intel deprivation as a counter to local < encouraging in-game afk activity (not part of any game design vision or rational behavior = illogical) + risk to assets in space (interaction)

AFK - Away From Keyboard = logged in, not playing or interacting with the game in anyway

If "intel deprivation as a counter to local" is truly the stated intention for keeping the cloaking mechanic the way it is (which it is clear and stated numerous times by multiple people that it is) then you are using your presence (AFK or not) to exert influence on your environment and those in it, specifically by using local to essentially plant a flag (if you argue this point you are simply not being honest and slow deathing us all). Regardless of whether this belongs in a "remove local" debate or not, it is clear that the AFK cloaker is intending to use their toon to influence others in the game.

It is perfectly legitimate to use your presence in local while in space SO LONG as the player is active and engaged in the actual game (i.e. PLAYING). If the user has no intention of interacting with the game while desiring to influence others ingame activity, and gain an advantage over time using this inactivity (i.e. desensitizing others to their presence so that once the AFK player eventually becomes active, can use that desensitized state to either gain intel, transmit intel, drop a cyno, or engage another player by surprise) then that player should be subject to the same consequences as any other player with an asset in space and not paying attention.

This can be done by simple mechanics that would encourage the user to maintain some form of reasonable vigilance that would require basic and normal interaction with the game. The most elegant and non-intrusive ways to achieve this would be to limit the amount of time a player can maintain a cloak through some form of resource consumption (simple module cycle using a charge that needs to be reloaded at some point like ammo) AND/OR be detectable in some way through some form of action or effort by another player beyond simple proximity to decloak (i.e. active scanning/probing).

In this way, the goal of achieving "intel deprivation" has remained unaffected and player interaction with both each other and the game have been supported and encouraged. CCP has stated numerous ways that they desire player driven content and mechanics that create emergent gameplay. This does both while achieving the objective of keeping players engaged in the actual game while their toons are logged in and undocked.

The requirement to actively interact on a periodic basis enhances local in two ways.

1. Drastically reduces credibility of cloaked players to appear absent.
You might be willing to expect a player needs to take a break, sleep, work at a job, etc... but if you know that name in local had to punch a key every single hour in order to remain present, then you also have a reasonable expectation they are at least checking on targets at those times as well.
The necessary suspension of suspicion required for PvE activity to resume, on the sly while the cloaker is away, is simply too far from sounding realistic, knowing they must show up that often.


2. Outed players, who are either logged out or destroyed, effectively forfeit their efforts, and hand hostile-free PvE activity to the sov holding players.
Yaaay, local is free of hostile names, everyone can safely PvE....

Oh please. If you're in any danger at all from the rats you're shooting, you're doing it wrong, and if you think it takes a carrier to rat without being in danger, you need to learn to EvE.

As far as bias on my side, keep in mind that I am primarily a ratter who PvPs as a hobby, rather than a PvPer who rats to make isk. I have absolutely zero problem with cloaky campers. All it takes to deal with cloaky campers is to not be averse to risk.

This is one of the major "fail points" in the logic of the anti-afk crowd. Of course it's not he only one lol.

If a player in NULL SEC (or low sec) with a neutral in local allows themselves to become "desensitized", they deserve to be blown up. This is because they know they are playing a non-consensual pvp game in one of the TWO areas where their is no negative consequence to pvp (the other being wormhole space).

If a wormhole play came to these forums and said "well, i got desensitized in my wormhole and a dude came out of no where and blew me up, so because I choose to not pay attention, CCP should change the game so this doesn't happen". EVERYONE would laugh their backsides off at the guy, but the quoted poster thinks that personal failure (ie getting desensitized and ratting in NULL with a neut in local) is reason for CCP intervention.

Sorry, it isn't. And the fact that the anti-afk crowd has to employ such nonsensical 'mental gymnastics' to get to a point where their argument makes sense tells you everything about how solid that argument is.

--

The REAL answer is the one we already do in-game: create the conditions where the AFK-cloaker is neutralized BEFORE he cloaks. Use cheap ratting ships that cost the cloaker more to blow up than it does to leave alone. Use in game tools like warp core stabs, fof missiles, drones, ecm , target spectrum breakers etc to become so slippery that the AFKers eventually say 'screw this, ima go find stupid people ratting in super carriers instead'.. Group up pantheon style with alts or friends in such a way that the COST of a hot drop is dead BLOPS (nothing deters Blops dropping more than dead blops, those things are expensive) and so forth.

I'll say again, if these anti-afk'rs put half as much energy into defending themselves and playing the game as they did turning illogical flips on this forum this wouldn't even be a topic.

No not at all. Jus saying they are occupied doing something. Though not a huge risk at all, it is possible to lose a ship to rats.

I never advocate and I never will advocate the change of the funcation of cloak. I personally advocate scan probes, changes to local and nothing else.

Jenn. What if sov space wasnt part of it. What if making isk wasnt part of it?

What if someones point was the simple fact that a person in space, camping a system shouldnt be 100% safe?

That is crap. That is all I have advocated. No change to cloak, add scan probes, and removing info from local

So what would your scan probes do?

You actually said cloaked ships. Let's face it if they are scanable with probes, they are hardly as they are now. Whether it be the ship or the cloak you were talking about. It's still a change to them.