Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No one "AFK" can drop a cyno or open a jump of any kind. No one cloaked can do any of those things either...

I'm still voting on killing the curent claoking system by any means
But yeah it realy would be nice to see a dev or two saying something about this in whole.

Cloakers be damned but hey it's my opinion cause how ever you try to justify your own point of view there are the ones that just don't want to hear what you have to say so I'll say it that way. Of course I want a balance but I just don't want to argue about this anymore and that why "break cloaks tm"

Oh no... lets say "break claoks tm" is the sum of all ideas that I have had and will have on the subject. I am willing to compromise but as the discussion is on a halt and all the angry, pointless and not willing to see any other points of views from cloakylovers are starting to get on my nerves I have seen it's just better to say "break cloaks tm" and thats it.

You either deliberately took that quote out of context to try and prove your point, which is massively disingenuous or your reading comprehension is terrible and you should work on that. The point I was demonstrating with that quote was that anyone - PVEr or PVPer - can abuse local to avoid fights they do not wish to be in, and of course the best example of a fight that neither a PVE or PVP player wants to be in is one in which they are outgunned. To take that and twist it into "see see! You do want easy targets!" is just silly.



So what you're saying is you want to remove playstyles you don't like (someone who cynos in buddies to help kill things) so only playstyles you do like (people fighting without cynoing in buddies) are left. Sorry mate that's not how a sandbox works. No matter how you cut it, you want to reduce the freedom and options available in eve so that only things *you* want are left, regardless of the balance issues.



You can try and smear us by crying "whining" and "greed" and whatever other childish insults you can come up with, but it's a matter of balance. Ships in nullsec - regardless of whether they're PVE or PVP ships - should not be granted the safety they are by local. If they were putting in effort and working to attain that level of safety, and it was something another player could potentially affect, then that's great. But it isn't right now.

The only reason you keep trying to differentiate between PVE and PVP ships when what I'm talking about applies equally to everyone is because you are desperate to characterise me as only picking on poor weak PVE ships, to paint me as a coward, or greedy or whatever else. It's not working bro. And the comments about making them "want to fight" is idiotic - pvp is not consensual in EVE, I don't have to make them "want" to fight me. Do you understand how the sandbox works at all, mate? And who are you to say which ways I can/should interfere with an enemy? I can do whatever I want, I'm not limited to only the methods you approve.



Oh believe me, I understand your point. Your point is "I have to desperately mischaracterise these players as greedy cowards! And then drivel on about consensual only pvp!". That's your point, right? Cos I'm not seeing you understand the actual issues or argue them in a comprehensible way.

I'm not sure we play the same game Nikk, I see heaps of "reds" around the system I work in doing fleet roams, gate camps, baiting, hot dropping and even some POS bashing. We engage them, sometimes we lose ships, sometimes they lose ships. We engage because it's part of defending our systems.

Our systems are locked down reasonably tight, we have good defence, but it's far from perfect, for it to be perfect we would need every neutral and blue in system to be engaged in PvP opps against the "reds" 100% of the time. Having PvE and mining in sov space stops this situation and allows reds to operate, though with a fair bit of risk, as pvp should be.

A very small percentage of "reds" engage in camping operations, for them, we just empty the system of all PvE/mining and give them zero targets, they usually give up after a few days.

Cloaky camping isn't caused by local, it's somewhat used as a tactic because local and all the other intel tools we use are pretty strong, but then again part of operating in null sec is knowing what the "reds" are up to.

Cloaky camping is more a direct result of cloaks at safe points being such a strong tool, think about it, a cloak at a safe spot is the only 100% safe option for anyone in sov space, including the sov holders themselves. Think about it, I can cloak up, every POS in my system can be destroyed, sov can change hands, I can be locked out of the station and me and my ship will still be 100% safe.

Local only says I've got some possible hot dropper in system (who I have set as red), intel channels say if he is camping or not, killboards show me what he is flying and what he likes to kill as well as the hot dropping fleet he uses and I choose not to engage, work somewhere else, another system, high sec or play another game. I guess you are kind of right on one point though, nerfing or getting rid of local altogether will stop camping from being such a problem because it would empty null sec of all but the most hard core PvPers.

My fix would be an opt in thing, an system upgrade as part of the sovereignty infrastructure. This device would turn off local channel and replace it with a system sov comms channel. Players of good standing (blue NBSI or not red (NRDS) would see a list of all friendlies in system. However for non friendlies would be blocked both ways from it, showing only as a "unknown hostile" in the list.

The device would lock onto the signature of hostile ships that stay in the system and present them as a warp to point for friendlies in the system but only after an 90 minutes of the person occupying the system even if the unfriendly is cloaked. Also if the unfriendly logs off in the system the timer is simply put on hold, not reset.

Why a sov upgrade, cloaky camping only really affects sov space so having it as an upgrade will have zero effect on cloaking elsewhere. Why 90 minutes, it's heaps of time for active players to do what they want to do, if they want longer, all they need to do is exit and re-enter the system and if they really need to go afk, they can still log off, although the tactic of logging off and on like a crazy person every 15 minutes is diminished.

"Reds" get there identity masked in local, people who do non PvP operations in sov space no longer get campers and can still see danger, however need to more than just look at local to identify the threat and people who are happy with things the way they are don't need to "opt in" and buy the upgrade.

I'm fine with changing cloaks...so long as we change local so it is not the instant intel mechanic it currently is. Something so that pilots engaged in PvE are not safe except for pilot error or bad luck. Right now, I'd say an AFK auto piloting freighter going through Uedama is at greater risk than a vigilant and experienced null sec pilot ratting away...and that strikes me as silly.

Or how about this, we nerf cloaks and we nerf null sec so that ratting is no better than running level 4s and mining is as bad as high sec? No more officer spawns, no more exploration, no nothing that generates more isk/hour than grinding out crappy missions in a major mission hub. Same goes for various NPC space as well. No more spiffy BPCs, or juicy loyalty store goodies...at least nothing better than what you get in empire?

If you want to be that safe, then you can get exactly the same rewards.

Bump

Grey....

[/Fox Mulder Mode]

Anti-anti-cloaking measures deployed....