These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#941 - 2013-09-11 22:46:44 UTC
virgofire wrote:


I don't actually disagree with any of it. What I disagreed with was the complete removal of local, and from there have just been responding to people.



Where have I advocated this? It has not been in any of my posts.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#942 - 2013-09-11 22:58:16 UTC
Are you not even reading the quotes you put up. I clearly stated. "I don't actually disagree with any of it."

Then follows up by stating what I disagree with " What I disagreed with was the complete removal of local," which is what started me posting 4 pages back.

From there I have been responding to people.....
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#943 - 2013-09-11 22:59:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic
I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#944 - 2013-09-11 23:04:09 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Lord Battlestar wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Not even going to read it, are ya?

Sorry I am done responding to you. I prefer Nikk anyway. I feel he is actually working to better the game.


I read it, and I still don't see how it would fix anything other than kill pvp even more. Because if a gang comes in carebears dock up, if an afk cloaker is around you scan him down and kill him then go back to pve/carebearing. It breaks the system so entirely that carebears would literally be nearly invulnerable. 0.0 would become no better than highsec.

What part of Teckos' argument do you inherently disagree with? Because I see much more logic in his ideas, than in yours.


I don't actually disagree with any of it. What I disagreed with was the complete removal of local, and from there have just been responding to people.


I agree the afk cloaker should be vulnerable too, but both the prey and the hunter should have vulnerability. If you make it too easy to hunt the hunter then the prey won't even be hunted. The problem with the current system is that with instant intel the prey can simply dock up or POS up.

Part of the reason for afk cloakers is that roaming gangs have been rendered mostly useless, cause as soon as one of your ships enters system they dock and POS up (well unless they are stupid). The system must be nerfed or boosted from both sides, to do only one will serve only to break the system further.

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.

supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#945 - 2013-09-11 23:08:18 UTC
all you have to do is have cloaked ships disappear from local and operate like they do in wormholes

1. cloaked ships are delayed rules
2. uncloaked are normal
3. they share the same local

Players would no longer be able to complain that there are afk cloakies in system because they would never be able to tell that they are there.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#946 - 2013-09-11 23:11:38 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic
I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please.


Hmmm, well I read Poetic Stanziel's post you seemed to be replying to:

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/12/local-cloaking-bringing-mining-back-to.html?spref=tw

Where Poetic Stanziel was indicating that there is no industry, mining to be specific, in low sec because miners (and everyone else) sticks out like a beacon in local. His solution was a module that could hide a person in local (I'm simplifying). You'll have to forgive me for seeing your response as an implication that there are...shall we say "issues" with local.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#947 - 2013-09-11 23:17:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Explorer
Teckos Pech wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic
I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please.


Hmmm, well I read Poetic Stanziel's post you seemed to be replying to:

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/12/local-cloaking-bringing-mining-back-to.html?spref=tw

Where Poetic Stanziel was indicating that there is no industry, mining to be specific, in low sec because miners (and everyone else) sticks out like a beacon in local. His solution was a module that could hide a person in local (I'm simplifying). You'll have to forgive me for seeing your response as an implication that there are...shall we say "issues" with local.
That I was responding to Poetic Stanziel blog shouldn't be interpreted as anything beyond exactly what I said, and this was a tweet thread and the earlier tweets provide context. Smile

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#948 - 2013-09-11 23:22:27 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic
I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please.


Hmmm, well I read Poetic Stanziel's post you seemed to be replying to:

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/12/local-cloaking-bringing-mining-back-to.html?spref=tw

Where Poetic Stanziel was indicating that there is no industry, mining to be specific, in low sec because miners (and everyone else) sticks out like a beacon in local. His solution was a module that could hide a person in local (I'm simplifying). You'll have to forgive me for seeing your response as an implication that there are...shall we say "issues" with local.
That I was responding to Poetic Stanziel blog shouldn't be interpreted as anything beyond exactly what I said, and this was a tweet thread and the earlier tweets provide context. Smile


Alright. Would it be fair to say you are open to new mechanics for gathering intel and turning local into a chat channel, more or less?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#949 - 2013-09-11 23:38:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Alright. Would it be fair to say you are open to new mechanics for gathering intel and turning local into a chat channel, more or less?

This question is highly anticipated by many, and I echo it as well.

It feels like a part of the game has not been unlocked, due to the limits in place with the current system.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#950 - 2013-09-12 00:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Just want to reiterate (at least I think I've posted something like this before), I don't usually AFK cloak in 0.0 systems. If I do it is cause I'm AFK for a reason (bathroom, food, etc.) or its a system with Finfleet ratting. Yes, I have a special dislike for them. Twisted

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#951 - 2013-09-12 04:13:32 UTC
I also want to add that awoxing is also a symptom of the lack of usability of roams, much like the afk cloaker. Because they can't get targets to not POS or dock up in any other way, it is just easier to get a spy alt in the alliance or at least blue to the alliance and then prey on them that way.

I personally see a lot of benefits from the removal of local as an intel tool. Just by setting it delayed can make lag a bit easier. I can't tell you how it can slow things down when local is constantly moving and chatting. In high sec local is not really needed either, because unless you are at war who cares who is in system with you.

I hardly notice who is in system or not. Heck most people use local as a spamming tool and intel tool than actually chatting. If it were set to delayed it wouldn't stop that, but it also wouldn't really hurt anything either. Because in Jita or Amarr, how is a war target going to even know you are there without seeing you directly or using a locator agent. They might not even know what ship you are in, and even in a system with 50 people undocked, it is a tall order to scan someone down if you do not know their exact ship type.

But this is just my opinion...

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.

CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#952 - 2013-09-12 04:58:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
virgofire wrote:
Wow quick to get defensive, are we?

No honestly, I think it's you and a few others that commonly post on this topic that are trying to smoke screen issues. Your suggestions aren't bad suggestions. I never said that, but they do feel like you are trying to tell people how to play the game instead of "teaching" as you claim.


Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse. Roll

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic
I never said local was broken, that is not what my tweet was about. Read the entire thread to get the context, please.


Hmmm, well I read Poetic Stanziel's post you seemed to be replying to:

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/12/local-cloaking-bringing-mining-back-to.html?spref=tw

Where Poetic Stanziel was indicating that there is no industry, mining to be specific, in low sec because miners (and everyone else) sticks out like a beacon in local. His solution was a module that could hide a person in local (I'm simplifying). You'll have to forgive me for seeing your response as an implication that there are...shall we say "issues" with local.
That I was responding to Poetic Stanziel blog shouldn't be interpreted as anything beyond exactly what I said, and this was a tweet thread and the earlier tweets provide context. Smile


Alright. Would it be fair to say you are open to new mechanics for gathering intel and turning local into a chat channel, more or less?
As a tech person I would want local to be a chat channel, yes.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#953 - 2013-09-12 05:48:02 UTC
virgofire wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:

Also consider this - your whole point is based on a huge logical flaw -
AFK ships can't do anything, since they're AFK.
So what actually bothers you, is the uncertainty, right? Close your local channel window and you should be just fine.


Yes yes. Great plan. Let people just stick their head in the sand and pretend no one is out there. That wont result in a blown up ship at all.

Of course the uncertainity of it all is the issue. This style of game play is simply taking advantage of a mechanic in the game. It might not be against the rules at the moment, but it doesnt mean that it isn't something that shouldn't be reworked.

I personally am less concerned with the uncertainity of the situation and less frustrated that I can't fight back. I can defend myself, but I can't go on the offensive and attack a cloaky camper. That is what bothers me about the tactic. I simply move to an uncamped system, but I would much rather go fight off the cloaky and turn the tables on him.

I dont think this is unreasonable of a request. It just needs to be done in a balanced way.


Well, you see there, plaing EvE in general is taking advantage of the mechanics, swinging it to aid your needs, and this is no exception.
You can't go on to the offensive against someone under a POS field. Not against the POS, but against the ratter who hides there as soon as someone enters local. You also can't go on the offensive against someone docked. And you have no idea if he's AFK or active waiting to undock and warp in on you. You can't go on the offensive against someone logged off in local, until the log on.
And you can't go on the offensive on the cloaky ship, until he decides to decloak. And it's allright, because while's he's cloaked - he can't go on the offensive on you. For that - he'll have to decloak.


Vas Eldryn wrote:


scroll up and actually read some of the posts.

Oh but i did read a few, and to be honest there's really no need to - AFK cloak whine is always the same, based on logical flaws and impotence/lack of will to do something to counter it.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#954 - 2013-09-12 08:37:21 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This blew my mind with the extreme expectations of what should be seen as acceptable gameplay in null in general.

virgofire wrote:
...

If you are watching local for your intel, you are dead already, especially if your in a ratting carrier. You will be tackled before you can warp off to safe. ...


Maybe you like the idea of a ratting carrier. But if you are not in an alliance with a blue donut big enough to preclude hostile presence, it is often enough an awful idea.

A carrier used for ratting can be justified only if you can afford to lose it. That's your call, but don't expect the game to become safe for your convenience.

Rewards, ultimately, are limited by risk, or the economy tanks.
If risk is not enough to balance rewards, then the devs either roll back the rewards or increase the risk.

Local intel is a disaster for PvE in null, because it gives hostile outsiders all the information they need, while only upgrading local residents the difference between their intel channel and itself.
Need to find a pilot to hunt? Knowing they are in the system is OP for a hunter who would have otherwise left after a few minutes fruitless searching.
Instead of leaving for better hunting areas, they stay put because they see pilots in local. Cloaked at a belt, docked in a POS, or kicking back in an outpost, they are being flawlessly tracked.

And no amount of effort on the part of PvE can hide the presence from being handed to the hunter on a silver platter.


Honestly I dont understand why you think my statement is false. If youre only using local as your intel, and I mean ONLY local for the system your in, then you are very likely going to die if someone jumps in, unless you are in a quick ship. If the invading person or persons goes straight to station, its likely they will beat you to the station and have it bubbled by the time you get there. So you can seem amazed at the statement but it is pretty true. Advanced warning comes from intel channels, and lets you prep so that when you see something in local you can immediately act. You will see someone entering local before they load.

Furthermore I have never asked for safe null sec. I said just a few posts ago that my only real issue with AFK cloaking is the inability to take the offensive against a player once they are in a system camping.

I have never found local to be an issue at all. From either a PVE or PVP point of view. I have always accepted it for what it was. When I get camped I move or fall back on other forms of isk gathering. I am in support of a change cause I dont like the idea of a single person taking an entire system hostage. It ruins the game play for the people that call that area home.

Once a person is camped in a system, there is no way to make them leave or even force them to leave. It is completely up to that player if they wish to leave, either in combat or on their own. I simply don't like this and think it needs to be addressed..


If you're in any ship smaller than the abomination that is a ratting carrier than the opposite will be true - you will be able to get safe before the other person has a chance to do anything. Perhaps instead of demanding the game be changed to provide your PVE capital with perfect safety you could ship down into something that's more affordable to lose and which has incredibly better chances of escaping? Or you could continue ratting in your carrier, but have a fleet of alliance mates ready to protect it? Why are you demanding the game mechanics be changed to provide you perfect safety when there are many things you can do already to improve your safety? You are greedy and stubborn.

Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#955 - 2013-09-12 08:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
...


You know Azrael that is a load of bunk. You know that most of us favor changing local and cloaks. What we don't favor is simply changing cloaks.


Yes I know most of you favor it and I do too... I just have a thing with gunslinger and my comment was directed towards him and him only. This topic gets my blood boiling sometimes. Sorry

What bad did you do Teckos to get a dev to talk in here? Twisted

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#956 - 2013-09-12 08:47:04 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
...


You know Azrael that is a load of bunk. You know that most of us favor changing local and cloaks. What we don't favor is simply changing cloaks.


Yes I know most of you favor it and I do too... I just have a thing with gunslinger and my comment was directed towards him and him only. This topic gets my blood boiling sometimes. Sorry

What bad did you do Teckos to get a dev to talk in here? Twisted


Haters gonna hate.

But in all seriousness I did my best to explain the seemingly contradictory phrases of "it's not a problem" and "here are some solutions". As I said, I don't think cloaking/local/cynos are "broken" or "problematic" as they balance each other, but if you dislike how that works there are things - "solution" might not be the best word - that you can do to mitigate or handle it.

hope this helps
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#957 - 2013-09-12 11:42:56 UTC
I don't normally do this on threads but for this I think I will. Gun, your ignorance of my stance makes you seem less like a person trying to add to the thread and more of a person interested in being a troll.

I have cleared stated that I am working on t2 production. That means I spend a lot fo time behind a POS shield pulling moon materials, and setuping up other stuff in reaction POS's. I do very little mining, and I do rat quite often. Every time I take a ship out I am ok with it being lost.

Secondly I haven't made any demands for any changes outside of the thread I posted several months ago, and I even stated that thread had issues and I abandoned it.

If you're going to try an call me greedy and stubborn, then I am going to point out your ignorance. Read my posts, understand what I am trying to say. You arent even discussing anything about the main issue that I am talking about, which is the perma camp cloaky camper.

You are doing the same thing Teckos did by picking a choosing what you wish to comment on so you can try to twist their meanings. He got called out on it.

The only person I have seen so far is NIkk, who seems to actually care about improving game play.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#958 - 2013-09-12 12:16:35 UTC
I apologise, but some of the things you've said have given certain impressions - such as claiming you couldn't escape if ratting in a carrier - which I then respond to.

If thats slightly off topic, or a tangent to what your main point is, then my bad.

Lets get back on topic, and back to the real deal: What is the issue with cloaked campers?

I maintain that this style of play fine - it is in balance with other mechanics such as local, and is currently something that is actually necessary in order to maintain the uncertainty and risk that is required in order for nullsec and the economy to function correctly. It cannot be changed unless other drastic changes are made to preserve the uncertainty and risk.
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#959 - 2013-09-12 12:35:07 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I apologise, but some of the things you've said have given certain impressions - such as claiming you couldn't escape if ratting in a carrier - which I then respond to.

If thats slightly off topic, or a tangent to what your main point is, then my bad.

Lets get back on topic, and back to the real deal: What is the issue with cloaked campers?

I maintain that this style of play fine - it is in balance with other mechanics such as local, and is currently something that is actually necessary in order to maintain the uncertainty and risk that is required in order for nullsec and the economy to function correctly. It cannot be changed unless other drastic changes are made to preserve the uncertainty and risk.


OK. Well I have stated that I feel that perma camped systems are pushing the boundaries of what is considered intel gathering or any other game play and moving into an area of harassment. I understand the ideas put forth by Nikk and others are ways to increase the security of a person operating in a system that is camped but they are not solutions to the problem. The camper still exists.

That problem being that once a camper is in place, it is impossible to remove them without them choosing to remove themselves, either via combat or simply leaving.

This to me is a severe imbalance in the game, as miners are expected to put huge amounts of time and effort into increasing industrial levels and ratters increasing the military level of a sytem, and suddenly one person can come in and destroy that by just providing a threat of a hot drop. Basically holding a system hostage.

To me this seems unbalanced. The cloaky camper is at very little risk isk wise, they are in ships that are meant to be thrown away in suicidal attack tactics, and they work with the backing of a cyno to bring in friends and do the heavy assault.

What I would like to see is a way to deal with a person that is perminately camping a system. I have never thought that changing cloak or altering local was nessicary, though I am not against it either. I offered several changes to loacl in my thread months ago about afk camping.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#960 - 2013-09-12 13:00:17 UTC
virgofire wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I apologise, but some of the things you've said have given certain impressions - such as claiming you couldn't escape if ratting in a carrier - which I then respond to.

If thats slightly off topic, or a tangent to what your main point is, then my bad.

Lets get back on topic, and back to the real deal: What is the issue with cloaked campers?

I maintain that this style of play fine - it is in balance with other mechanics such as local, and is currently something that is actually necessary in order to maintain the uncertainty and risk that is required in order for nullsec and the economy to function correctly. It cannot be changed unless other drastic changes are made to preserve the uncertainty and risk.


OK. Well I have stated that I feel that perma camped systems are pushing the boundaries of what is considered intel gathering or any other game play and moving into an area of harassment. I understand the ideas put forth by Nikk and others are ways to increase the security of a person operating in a system that is camped but they are not solutions to the problem. The camper still exists.

That problem being that once a camper is in place, it is impossible to remove them without them choosing to remove themselves, either via combat or simply leaving.

This to me is a severe imbalance in the game, as miners are expected to put huge amounts of time and effort into increasing industrial levels and ratters increasing the military level of a sytem, and suddenly one person can come in and destroy that by just providing a threat of a hot drop. Basically holding a system hostage.

To me this seems unbalanced. The cloaky camper is at very little risk isk wise, they are in ships that are meant to be thrown away in suicidal attack tactics, and they work with the backing of a cyno to bring in friends and do the heavy assault.

What I would like to see is a way to deal with a person that is perminately camping a system. I have never thought that changing cloak or altering local was nessicary, though I am not against it either. I offered several changes to loacl in my thread months ago about afk camping.



I don't see how the mere presence of a player in system against your wishes can be considered harassment. That is a very ridiculous claim in my opinion. I understand that they are an uncertainty and potential threat, but that's part and parcel of living in nullsec. Would you say it is harassment if I park my alt in a station in a null system and never move? Of course not, because such a claim is patently ludicrous.

While it is true you cannot remove a cloaked player while they are cloaked, they cannot do anything to you. They can only actively do something to you if they decloak, and if they decloak then they can be blown up. That is not imbalanced, as you claim, it is in fact perfect balance. When they're in a state that prevents them doing stuff to people, people are also prevented from doing stuff to them.

Additionally, I cannot hold a system hostage while I am cloaked. I cannot do anything to the people in system while cloaked. If I want to do anything in order to prevent them going about their business I have to decloak, at which point you can shoot back. It is literally impossible for me to hold a system hostage or impede anything you're doing while I am cloaked.

The real issue here is that certain people - perhaps yourself included - simply refuse to do anything when there is any level of uncertainty or risk. That's what this boils down to. I am not holding a system hostage, you are merely refusing to do anything if there is potential danger. That's unfortunate, since nullsec is by design a volatile, risky place. If you refuse to operate with those uncertainties and risk present, then go somewhere those uncertainties and risks don't exist (or are at least much lower). I hear theres a place called highsec that matches the bill.