Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The psychological warfare would still exists with the cap consumption idea. You would still be able to leave your cloaked ship in space just to make people in the system less secure, you just wouldn't be able to do that indefinitelly and without risks. If you remove the cloaked pilot from local then you don't have that psychological warfare tactic anymore. Is that what you want?

I just tought that maybe the cloak reactivation time could be directly related to the time it was activated. Nothing radical though. Something like 1 minute or so for every hour cloaked. Idk, it is a rough idea I just tought about. Cloaking devices already have a reactivation delay but the time is fixed. With a dynamic time the risk of being probed would be greater if the pilot goes afk for a long time.

The lack of threads about it means it's not even on peoples radar, let alone a problem. And no, this thread only has you believing or trying to justify your stance, by making the claim it's in anyway the same in high/low sec as it is in null.

I did mention them, they are the same reasons it's not viable out of war. I'm also saying that when in a state of war, you know that you may be jumped by those war targets in the system and accept it. You don't just hope they will go away by remaining docked and not playing. You prepare, plan and work as a group, to mitigate the risk. You also don't sit there wondering if they may be AFK and cloaked or not. Although I'm sure you'll say that's exactly what you do.

No it isn't. You tried to claim this situation differs due to it being a bigger situation. But we are talking about 1 guy cloaked and AFK. I'm saying that the whole sov taking situation, the bigger situation you talk of, is irrelevant in this regard. Unless you want to claim active intel gathering before an invasion, is in fact AFK cloaking?

Now to earning, again no that's not what you are saying. Yes your ISK per hour can be reduced, but that's a far cry from unable to earn anything. Much like in high sec wars and in low sec with others in the system, there is still earning potential. You just need to be smart, adapt and be prepared.

But yes it is a higher earning potential than in high sec, but shouldn't that come with more risk? As it stands much of sov space could be argued as being as safe as high sec, due in no small part to just how well local works there. Maybe even safer, if all you do is dock up at the first sign of trouble and not leave till it's gone. Yet here you are asking for yet more safety, not what I would call a balance approach tbh.

The fact that I went 50+ jumps, many through hostile territory justifies the threat of my AFK cloaked force recon, bomber, or cov-ops.

EVE is about balance. Balance specifies nothing beyond equal aspects at work on both sides of an issue.

EVE is very specifically about NON-CONSENSUAL conflict as well. If that should take the form of market warfare, or space combat between ships, at no time is mutual consent ever a requirement.

The limits to this only exists to the point where it can be demonstrated that a specific pilot is being repeatedly targeted, as that implies harassment or griefing.

The FACT that I, and every other PvE pilot in sov null can use local so effectively, that PvP for us effectively becomes consensual, speaks volumes about whether local is an OP mechanic there.

Adding limits to cloaking described in this thread as fuel, cap, or even some other form of timed limit, does nothing more than reinforce and amplify this ability for PvE to further avoid conflict except by choice.

For this reason, I state again:
No single PvE pilot ever was killed in their home system, except through pilot error.

They either made a mistake about another pilot being active, and undocked in an unprepared ship...

OR

They failed to prepare by aligning to a safe spot, and hitting warp when the hostile enters the system.

All the cloaked pilot EVER did was take advantage of an opportunity, one handed to them by a mistake on a silver platter.

Didn't all those assets in the tower had to be hauled there too? I think setting up a POS does involve more risks than jumping into a system with a cov-ops.

I understand, although you do not whish to enphatize it, that you're talking about a problem in sov null. We went through this already. I agreed with you that local intel is possibly breaking the game there, and added that changing it there does not solve the problem anywhere else. I think changing local can solve a lot of problems but I'm trying to consider a different, more simple solution for the specific problem of afk cloaking.

The composition of the ship/fleet doesn't matter because since they are cloaked they will always be able to pick their targets. The pilot of a cloaked ship is only vulnerable at a level that he choses to be. That is the essence of the cloak game. It is how the cloaking works on an absolute level. There is no limited understanding here, just abstraction.

... and that is not even a problem. The problem is the pilot being able to go afk indefinitely while in space, period.
Your idea is cool, but I prefer the one being discussed here. You should respect that, not try to control my perception.

Dude, look at my KB. Do I have lots of hot drop victims? If you look you'll find a handful of them in there.

So no, it isn't just me wanting "easy targets". Easier targets? Sure, but given the advantage that already exists with PVE players that we have already established that does not seem unreasonable.

So, Try again.

Yes AFK cloaking is not effective in high and low, due to how those systems and the people within them operate.

No I'm not agreeing with you regarding earnings, as you claim that you are unable to earn anything. I'm saying that yes there may be a reduction, as ISK per hour may drop when ratting in PvP fit ships for example, but that's a far cry from unable to earn anything.

They complain because they don't wish to lower their ISK earning potential, plan, group up and mitigate the risk. I take this from their replies when they talk of ratting in carriers, or billion fit factions ships and from the fact they are on the forums complaining about the same.

I'm saying that those who move to null who accept that there may be enemies hanging round from time to time. Accept they are in an area of space meant to be riskier than most, deal with it as I subscribe and don't see it as a problem either. They see it as part and parcel of null sec life. Higher rewards, with what is meant to be higher risk. Although in reality the risk isn't higher. Which is why we find it odd, that you and other want to remove some.

Yes I believe they are all from null sec dwellers, I would even go as far as to say sov null sec. Sure it would be hard to say for certain, due in part to the fact that many threads are made by alts. But I will point to the fact they are all concerning sov null sec systems. I cannot recall ever seeing one that wasn't. But never say never, there may be one and you may be the guy to point it out.

HS, low, WH... Nobody give a **** to AFK cloackers or allow them to affect their gameplay. This is felt like a problem only by a very delimited subset of 0.0 sov. players. And are 2 kind of players:

1. Botters. Ratting BOTS are scripted to warp ins afe if any neutral in local. So, yes, they're effectively damaged by AFK cloackers.

2. Renters/Peones. Theyy moved from HS to 0.0 simply to farm ISK and they brought with them their HS carebear mindset and gameplay.

Think about this: the "a neutral in local stop any activity" is the same as those HS corp that, when wardecced decide to counter itit refusing to undock.

Is exatly the same mindset and gameplay adapted to 0.0.
And is conseguence of the 0.0 carebearization process started with Dominion expansion.