Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Spot on, but its classic baltec1 where he just throws prove it when he knows that most people have anecdotal evidence only, I have known quite a few people who left the game with this round the clock AFK cloaky camping as being one of their reasons.

And you notice that he has not anything to say of the AFK flag suggestion at all, when they try to divert attention and shoot at the person making the suggestion then you know that they find the idea less than appealing but can see no way to counter it on its own merits.

The issue is not cloaking, its continuous AFK cloaking 23.5/24 and 7/7 take that issue away as per my suggestion and people would be happy with the mechanism.

One thing you see thrown at you when raising this issue is that they are AFK so they won;t hurt you, so my reply to that is an AFK flag, the answer being well in which case they would not mind an AFK flag.

You went off the deep end here, by pushing the idea that AFK play has no value, and that cloaked play has rewards without risks.

On the context that this idea would genuinely identify actual AFK players, and not be rendered meaningless by players figuring out how to game the system:

The cloaked player has no direct gain.
Just because someone chose to avoid risk by not mining, and not ratting, the cloaked player does not receive any actual rewards.
Those asteroids and rats just sit in space, unused and ignored.
While the competitors to the corp or alliance being affected may see this as weakening their opponents, they also do not receive any direct income or benefit.
What they might see, is a weakened enemy in an upcoming conflict, possibly making this the preparation for an attack.

Why does a cloaked player do this?
Known reasons include:
1. Lures out targets over time.
Players have often shown they will risk exposure, if they believe the risk is false or manageable.

2. Scarecrow effect to keep away allies, so greed inspired players can take more than would otherwise be their share.
You don't really want your corp or alliance buddies eating up all the ore before you can grab it, or those rat spawns keep being snagged by someone else.
So, you bring in an unknown alt, set them up as a fake hostile, and scare away your so-called friends so you can PvE the good stuff first. Greed FTW!

3. Genuinely AFK, and intends to return to active play.
For whatever reason, logging out under their circumstances seems like a less desirable option here. Might be a timer that won't let you actually leave, might be any number of reasons. You foresaw a need to equip a cloak, so you get that bathroom break now.

4. Alliance level espionage.
They are watching your economic activity, and if your activities are hindered over concerns about their scout, all the better.

The uncertainty which may result, and any decisions affected, are purely in the hands of the players who observe that name listed in local.
Noone is forced to do anything by that player, at least.
That said, managers for an alliance may be the real issue, demanding everyone suspend activities so they can keep their excel sheet optimized.

If we must change the system, then I believe a fair balance only exists if an opposed effort between players is the key detail.

This effort would land on one of three endings.
Cloaked player pops a PvE target.
System dwellers pop the cloaked player.
Cloaked player leaves.

That last option is not what I would consider a genuine resolution, so if that ending becomes the most common for practical reasons, this effort has failed to balance this, and simply pushed circumstances towards the benefit of large sov holding alliances.

Well if that is how you want to push an argument I will let you get on with it and grin from the sidelines, that was priceless and I bet you thought you were being smart, wow!

I was being smart and simultaneously exposing the weakness of your argument.
Your post on the other hand offers nothing but personal bitterness.
please refrain if you have nothing to add, save precious forum space, every byte is precious.

That last sentence is all I really can be botherd to reply to, of course you do, you are numerous, well equipped exceptionally well organised and have so much ISK that you don't care about losing multiple AFK Ishtars, drop in the ocean old bean. If anyone deserves to be at the top of the pile due to sheer organisational brilliance its the Goons.

There is no other entity in this game that has the will and the means to defend the top ratting systems like you do. You can of course say that AFK cloaky camping does not matter because you guys can deal with it, so lets all become Goons then, problem solved.

In terms of the lied bit https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5465046#post5465046

I have personally tried to point out what I consider a flaw in regards to a cloak having 100% safety once a ship enters a system. This doesnt have to apply to sov space at all. It could be any space. I feel this isnt a balanced mechanic. I dont feel local is a 1:1 counter to cloak.

I dont want to change how cloak works as it is. I do wish there was a way to hunt the cloaks, and I realize that is in a way changing cloak would be used.

My personal stance on the topic is out of frustration. I dont care if someone camps my system, but after a week it gets old, after a month I want to put several artillery shells through his hull. However all my wants to engage this person are useless. I have to wait for them.

POS's can be destroyed and even if a person decides to dock up forever, the sov in that system can be lost and the station can be flipped. That in itself is a win.

Thats my stance on the topic.

First of all thank you for the honesty.
I completely understand, the month someone was camping "my" c3 was one of the most frustrating tbh.

However, its part of the game. Why should we feel safer in w or null than the poor hisec miners who actually dont have a clue
when the next ganger lands on them?

You also do realize, than inorder to achieve such an unfair safety for said groups, cloaking would have to be nerfed in some manner. Is that fair to all the people that use cloaking for reasons other than afk-trolling? A good example is explorers. Nothing to protect those poor ninja-rats other than the cloak. Taking that away from them just for the emotional well being of some seems very unfair to me.

I understand how an untouchable watcher can be unnerving, frustrating and even scary, but its up to you to set the negative feelings aside and go out and do what you do. Worst case scenario, you lose a ship, he gets his kill and moves along.
If you play it right, you can send him on his way with a cheap kill and none's the wiser. I used to keep a stock of mammoths in the C3 just for that reason. Whenever I suspected a camper, I just strolled around in my mammoth for a while. You would be surprised how many times the camper took that bait, trashtalked in local some and went on his way satisfied.

No.

Not Risk. Fear!

You're afraid of risk and that's why you choose to not take any. And that is your problem and yours alone, nobody and nothing else can be at fault for that.

Please try to avoid ad hominem here, no single character truly defines us as a player.