Warfare & Tactics

lol... show me instant shop in 0.0 where you can buy anything?
The same can be said about anything you can loose.... Titans included (there are many people with wallet larger than 100 billions).


hm.... few pages above people argued about "15 minutes afk -> disconnect" because of bio and stuff....





because all you said is about wormholes and can't be used outside

I strongly disagree with your last statement. Getting people out to nul is probably one if the greatest powers of a cloak. How many casual nul roamers would risk nul without the cloak/mwd trick or even just the cloak? This is especially true of the covert ops cloak. Cloaks encourage people to go out into nul and can provide a confidence boost to those entering nul for the first time.

As for counters, there are 2, proximity and vigilance.

No cloaker can be within 2000 meters of an object. The details of this are irrelevant to this discussion.

Vigilance though, is very relevant. One cloaky alt in system, rat with frigate support and be ready to run. More cloaky people, just run and wait them out, have a bigger support fleet, or rat else where. Because really, it's the pve ratters who worry about being disrupted by afk cloakers. In a staging system, there's too many people to threaten the cloaker if he does engage. In an empty system, who cares. Jump bridge system, if there's a lot make sure you have support or run. It really is the weakly populated ratter nul systems where the danger lies.

But it's these ratters who don't want to share the reward with a support fleet. It's these ratters who get upset that their nul sec ratting havens have a risk. But hey, they are nul sec members. They should get riskless pve just for being in nul. Oh wait, no it should have risk and part of that risk should be worrying if that afk cloaker is really afk, or a force recon 20 km off your bow, ready to drop cloak and light a cyno.

If you don't want that risk, go run level 4s in high sec with the rest of us.

I don't think anyone in this thread has an issue with folks travelling cloaked.



I think we can agree that vigilance will never locate and decloak a cloaked ship in a safe and I find it unlikely that a proximity decloak will occur when the cloaked ship is in a safe.

Folks talk about risk, yet to a degree there is no risk to a cloaked ship in a safe, in fact it could be said that the cloaked ship is far more successful in its activities that most other activities in null and yet it carries near to no risk to undertake this task. So does the act of cloaking require some risk, more than likely ...YES, this activity needs to have it share of risk just like everything else.

Fly safe. o7

The mechanic should not change but your addition to this argument is terrible... A gun sitting in a room does NOTHING! It makes no money, can't hurt anyone, and is otherwise worthless. People don't base decisions off ACTUAL threat alone. One must also consider potential threat which is what people here are complaining about.

Vexx

Kinda like gate camping? Or station games?

First, you have no idea if they're AFK or not. Period. You're just pissed because they've put you off your routine. That's good gameplay.

Second, they could very well be surveilling the "enemy system", which is good gameplay.

Third, they could be watching for specific patterns of troop movements, which is good gameplay.

But the rules should NEVER let someone actually do some thinking in this game!! Oh, noes!!!

The risk for the cloaker

1st getting into destination system bubble camps and sucker bubble camps with decloaking wrecks

2nd when cloaker decloaks to agress how does cloaker know you dont have your own cloaky alt/m8 cloaked off you

this is just another case of cry cry cry

try working together bait the cloaky into makeing a mistake ow wait that would require some thought nvm carry on crying

1st Just becouse camps bubbles are same risk to everyone els doesnt take the fact it a risk to the cloaky

2nd if thet dont decloak whats the problem? Ow i get it its your system how dare they be there??

Iv read all the thread seen your post i dont realy care what you think tbh you dont design the game

all i was doing was answaring the question about what risk the cloaker takes

The same place risk for whoever is docked in stations or sit behind POS shields 23/7 is.

AFK still remain the same regardless of what tool you utilize to enable it.

The issue here is still that people with POS and stations want to remove that ability from people without them.

They want to make their homes safer, while their homes are already too safe (that is one of the sweeping ideological issues with post-Apocrypha/Dominion EVE), and not enough people come to visit them. People should visit them.

It is the same arguments you see from people in Empire when they want to restrict ganks or other activities that impose on their safety, which they consider their "right". It's not meant to be a "right", it's meant to be apart of a balanced experience. You can debate the balance but you should examine your own perspective and be careful not to slip over into an established "right" (ie., it's my home, i should be safe) because that is incorrect and contrary to the core principles of this game. Empire is not safer because of it's "right" to be so, it's a question of balance concerns and player introduction.

Most of the people who complain about the perils of empire are the ones who have overextended their stay. Same as those of you who complain about the perils of nullsec.



The issue is that your ilk are making a Schroedinger's case to motivate their fear.

If a person is truely AFK then the cloaker have no impact what so ever beyond whoever is docked, behind shields or logged off. If they are not AFK the docked person can undock, the player behind shields can warp off and whoever is logged off can log on.

You can't have the cake and eat it. Either we deal with someone who is AFK or he isn't AFK.

The counter to the Schroedinger argument is the "vigilance" Lady A mentioned. If you are uncertain about someone's activity, take proactive measures: form traps, reserve escorts etc. Create redundancy!

The primary gameplay issue here is that we are voiding the game more and more from redudancy. Roles, ships, balance and safety are all getting more and more simplistic and onedimensional.

Having a redundancy in your operations will intergrate PvE and PvP players, it will involve people in actively using their space and not just using it as a safe cornfield reserve while they wage single-front, large-scale wars abroad.

We currently have too much of that in EVE, cloaking is but one tiny detail - but it rests on the same balance.

No, you are not getting it my whimpering friend.

They don't have the same "rights": They will never have the stations or POS.

I think it would help you to understand the balance by looking at PvE and PvP separately. I sort of hinted about it in my last post to you before you limped off. Compare the PvE of a visitor in your home to your PvE as the resident owner of it.

The ownership of structures have it's own, inherent, advantages.


He doesn't have the same options you do: you have the cloak in common, but you have more options.

You don't have to PvE with a cloak, travel with it or in any way restrict your choice of ships and setup around it. That is your reward for holding the system (owning the structures and the advantages they bring). What you want to do is remove the few options he have, so he is removed from that space and have no options left.

Likewise if we discuss PvP, a visitor do not have access to stockpiles of replacement ships (or extra drones if you have to warp and leave them behind, heh) in stations or POS. A hostile gang have no local exit options at an imminent loss (beyond cloaks, if the gang is cloaky). That's the advantage your structures provide you with.

It has the same effect on PvP, if you choke out the options a visiting group of players have, they will simply stop comming to visit. That is why roaming PvP is growing scarce and why we have to have emergency defilibrators like the "Bring solo back" initiative sending off the occasional shocks to get life beating again.

It's ideas like the ones you support that keep these things in an artificial state, as it aim to remove the natural appeal.

The natural appeal of comming to visit because there are PvP targets, or PvE because there are riches (to compete over).


You argue that as a "right": it is your system, so no one else should be able to PvE there.

Yet as EVE is meant to work, he is not supposed to be removed and control of a system should not only be defined by the structures you erect. Once again, the problem with EVE at the moment (post-Dominion) is that the game is too much about structures and the alienation of people from space (as different people in space lead to emergent interaction).


Look at the bigger picture: (you sort of bring this up when you mention blues and what sov imply).

Structures are bad because they have a very exclusive impact on the community: they force people out instead of bring them in to interact with each other. We have Wormholes simply because of this reason. They are a band-aid to deal with that problem: the balance of interactivity. Likewise, we have trouble getting sovereign people out of Empire for the same reason. We realised this already in 2006 when the pre-Dominion Sovsystem's conserving effects came under criticism (ie., the POS grind). The community expressed wishes for control to be determined by use, yet the Dominion-system was the complete opposite. It enabled people like you who belive you should be able to exclusively use space and not interact with other (hostile-) players. It's an empire-mentality transplanted to nullsec.

The more abstract discussion of Sov and blues is much more complicated and philosophical, so i'm leaving it out for now. Just bare in mind that it's implied in the name: sovereign space assumes sovereignty, not feudal fealty.

There's an interesting corrolation there to this topic: true sovereign groups usually don't have a problem with AFK cloakers. It tends to be the lament of their serfs.