Player Features and Ideas Discussion

we're argueing with a 5 months old noob here... just saying

Whatever you want, that would be the result anyway: removing the only disturbing/risky element for PVE in sov 0.0 space.

You already have region wide unlimited intel from local, structures, POS, blobs, bubles, gatecamps, you can dock and stay docked as you please, or in a POS and nobody have a say if you're AFK or not, you can rely on your alliances and coalitions, you can pick-up the ship you prefer to counter a threat, have your hangars and modules to reship.... Already now is strongly unbalanced to advantage the holder/defender, if you limit or remove the only potential, limited and occasional risk from a cloacking intruder or hotdrops it becomes a joke.

If changes are needed are just in the opposite direction.

Another thing to adress is how this is an issue only for very small well defined minority: 0.0 PVE players, and only a part of this minority. The rest (99% of EVE players) are perfectly fine with all this. Since 10 years.

5 months old..

5 pages to solve something that isn't a problem. Keep going guys!!! We need to set a record.

Where do you get the idea that I have only been playing for 5 months?

You know I can understand the arguments being placed against me. I havent asked to fight in complete safety or anything of that nature. What I am asking for is a way to deal with a potential threat.

As it stands now if a cloaky comes into system you have a few choices. You can dock up, you can go to a safe pos, or you can continue what you are doing. So what I am being told by many of you is that I am crying that I want things to be safe and I am not willing to risk anything. This however isn't true. What I want is a way to combat this pilot.

Many of the arguments placed against my idea are actually my exact argument but from the PVP standpoint. You claim I want safety but my suggestion threatens you're safety and thus you are against it.

I am willing to put my ships at risk and fight. I can make others. The risk doesnt bother me. The fact that my hands are tied and I cant engage this pilot is my issue. Even if it isn't a ship, something needs to be done to combat camping.

If you are going to sit in my system, why should I let you just sit there and collect intel on me, or why should I take the risk of losing a ship to you. Why should you be allowed to sit in my system in complete safety and tell me that I am not allowed to do something about it?

There are plenty of threads about the AFK cloak issue. There are plenty of people that have admitted that it is an issue.

You can call me a noob or whatever you want. That doesn't make a difference to me. I have placed a suggestion out there to even the playing field. It places risk on both sides of the field for PVE and PVP. Is it perfect? No. Does it have flaws. Yes. I didnt say that it should be put into the next patch but instead of saying No No No. I am sure that other suggestions could be put out there that combined would satisfy all sides.

right now cloakers are safe yes, if you nerf them the way you want, jewing empires in deep 0.0 would be safe. I prefer the first.

So you prefer your safety but when I ask for an equal footing, suddenly become a 5 month old noob.......

I havent suggested a nerf to cloak. Cloak would stay the same. I am actually moving more in favor of the idea of removing black ops ships from local and implementing the scout ship. This levels the playing field even more.

In what world are you living in? Of course it's a nerf to cloaking. The implications of your idea go well beyond dealing with afk cloakers.

Why should you have a way to combat a pilot who has no way to combat you? Why should you be able to combat him because he's AFK, but when you're AFK in your pos bubble or outpost he has no ability to combat you? Why should a cloaker have extra risks piled on when residents have virtually zero risk? Why are all the ideas proposed ones that FURTHER decrease risk to residents while INCREASING risk/punishments to visiting cloakers? Why havent you addressed the points I made about how your idea is a massive nerf to a number of different - and very much 'at the keyboard' - activities?

I'll answer all these question and more: Because these ideas are never, EVER about balance, or about creating incentives to PVP. They are quite simply about removing uncertainty in nullsec, because a tiny minority of bad, terrible players cannot understand or cope with said uncertainties. They see the name in local, but don't know if the player is active, or how big a threat he is. And they hate that. They hate it so much they come up with endless scapegoats and strawmen arguments.

It's funny how simple questions can expose the true nature of these threads.

OK so let me respond to all this.

First Robert. Your points are becoming less and less valid. The increase in attempted insults and other things really make you seem less interested in actually discussing the topic and more about trolling it. You seem to be concerned about people making ISK in safety. I spent most of the morning making ISK in perfect safety with a cloaky camper in my system at the moment. Nothing happened. No big deal.

Johan, cloaks wouldnt change, you would still hold all the advantages you have now but instead of being untouchable, you now have a potential threat against you. If you wish to call this a nerf to the cloak, so be it. It's a nerf. Personally I see no downside to this. If you are in space, you run the risk of being attacked. If your in a cloaked ship, you can stay in space forever and never get attacked, can collect intel or just sit afk to annoy people and keep them from doing stuff out of fear.

Alvatore, let me answer some of your questions. I know a cloaked ship can't attack me unless it decloaks. That's pretty simple. I am not sure why you choose to quote this and try to point it out since it really adds nothing to your argument for or against my idea. As for your second quote. I have also suggested the idea of taking Black Ops ships out of local, giving them the freedom of their cloak but in exchange for the scout ship. This is a fair trade in my opinion. The scout ship wouldn't be able to be a primary ship, unless someone plans to sit in it at all times and run scans. The most likely early warning system will be the screams from the first person that gets killed by a black ops fleet.

"Why do you have an issue with being unable to engage a pilot who's likewise unable to engage you? Why do you demand the right to force someone to become vulnerable when you won't give them the same right to force you into equal vulnerability when you dock or POS up? Answer this first and then we can talk about just how much something does or does not "need" to be done about camping."

Let me answer this. Your statement that the pilot can not engage me is false. By being in system, they have engaged everyone there. They have provided a threat to that system. I wish to have a way to deal with that threat. The current system does not allow me to do anything other than dock up OR I can risk a ship in space but only on the terms of the cloaky. They determine if they wish to fight, they determine when and where. To use your logic. I cant decloak you if I am docked up. The scout ship gives you exactly what you want. A target in space ready to fight. From how you structure your argument, it would seem to be that you arent interested in a fight but more about the chance to blow up an unarmed mining barge, or a PVE fit ratting ship. Two ship types that pose very little threat to you. So question answered.

As for gate camps to catch cloaked ships or something else of that nature. Of course those can be setup but the cloak still holds its advantage and always will. Of course a well equiped camp can catch a cloaky. That wouldnt chance, with or without the scout ship. And as it for not being my system. Are you really going to go down that path? You know exactly what I mean.