Player Features and Ideas Discussion

YOU want to change a game aspect, AND you can't even prove that it does any good! That's really bad.

I had to make a very important change to my previous post from "with" to "without" because the intent was to show what would happen if stealth bombers could operate without being seen in local. Please update your posts to reflect this substantial error. My apologies.

PS: And to Nick, the anology to gatecamps is a solid one. I do not see how your argument disputes this. You say:


To be honest, sitting at a POS (minus fighter assignments) cannot bring in ISK, nor can being docked at a station, even though it does allow you to see local. Similarly, sitting on a gate perch cannot allow you to engage the targets which pass through (minus bubbles, to a degree), even though it does allow you to see the gate.

What uncertainty? I am certain that seeing anyone null or red in local will cause me to move to one of my alternate systems. No uncertainty there, regardless of your state.

It does have an effect of content denial, removing null systems from play. It's boring not just for the owners, but for anyone roaming through too. An empty null is a bad null.

A player monitoring system from a gate camp must be on grid to the gate, and visually watching the screen carefully.

The noise or other visual cue may warn them when to pay more attention, but not reliably so. The gate cloak effect is often held long enough to instill the consideration that a ship may have been missed. Especially if multiple activations occur in a short period.

A player monitoring local, can be in their captains quarters, with a browser window open to crudely drawn images of ponies.

It is unreasonable to claim they share the same level of risk and effort, considering the differences between what can happen to them.

Ah thanks for the link. I read this today (at work, oh the shame) and then couldn't find it again. All right I misread the form up part "They had already set-up themselves in the system earlier that day. In a nearby station lay a battleship-heavy fleet in waiting." but if that had been an Cloaker just waiting it wouldn't have happened as it did and this the player made content that was wouldn't have been.

Ok, you convinced me and I have to take back my words about being able to force AFK cloakers to fight :)
On the other hand, the cloak mechanics is designed in such a way that I cannot tell what the cloaked guy is doing (unless he has probes launched on dscan).
So, if he attacked me first time, then I can expect him to do the same second time. If he tricked me once then shame on him, but if he tricked me twice then shame on me :)
So, if I seeing him in local, I have to assume he is watching me and seeking opportunity for attack all the time.
The problem is that I see him 24/7 over a month now.

If I want to counter the threat, I have to gather a fleet, make them sit near me and do nothing, waiting for him to attack.
If he wants to arrange a threat, he only has to sit in a cloak somewhere in a system and do nothing.

I think that efforts that each side makes in this situation are way not equal. I want the mechanics to be changed in that way, than cloaker should make serious efforts to cause constant threat in 24/7 mode, or we should have the opportunity to see whether the cloaker is causing threat now or he just went to sleep.

At the risk of being accused of telling others how to play, I would offer the following tactical advice.

If you expect to have enough backing to bait the ship, fit up something they expect to see, and hang out in a place they can find you.
Noone will believe a bait ship for a newly arrived cloaker, just too obvious. After at least an hour though, you may be able to fool them into believing that impatient pilots are taking risks by being active.

For non-bait activity, where you do not expect support enough to win a fight, fit to evade.
For ratting, pick a boat with longer range weapons, and at least one utility high for a tractor beam.
Set up two to four bookmarks, all in a straight line. These bookmarks should allow you to make your turns at a safe spot, while remaining aligned to the opposite one while ratting. Simply go back and forth, and pick up the loots that were out of range on your next pass.

For mining, and I cannot stress this enough, either use the Venture or don't undock. You can of course use a fighting ship to mine with, but that is far less efficient than is reasonable.
With high skills, the Venture has 90% of the efficiency of a comparably fitted Mack.

Your alternative to these ideas, being of course, stay docked with no income.
IF they are doing this to deny you income, then they ARE getting what they want on a larger scale. They are a pawn being used to hold you in check, while they obviously are planning a move against your group later. This strategy has no value if not followed up on, in this context.

Why is AFK cloaking a problem? They can't kill you either.

It comes back to local, but we all know local is a much bigger issue, to which there are no good answers other than: it works as is, and has worked all this time. I'm not discussing local again in this thread, it's counter productive to the point at hand.

And that's fine. Coffee junkies would remain unaffected. And I'm not implying anything. I'm saying the act of being AFK would prove you AFK and prevention should be put in place for AFK players to affect the game, through either action or inaction.
It's widely know why they do what they do, there's no dispute about that. They know it lowers indexes. I don;t think anyone should be able to do that 24/7 with no effort.

Yes.

Oh and the sentry drone, bannable offense thing...give me a bit.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/drone-exploit-warning/