These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1401 - 2015-03-09 08:34:51 UTC
Not reading all these pages so this may have been mentioned before, but what if the denial of intel caused by cloaking worked both ways?

If I'm cloaked in your system, you don't see me on your overview or on your D-Scan, so why should I be able to see anyone else on my overview or D-Scan?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Chatles
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1402 - 2015-03-09 12:16:49 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Not reading all these pages so this may have been mentioned before, but what if the denial of intel caused by cloaking worked both ways?

If I'm cloaked in your system, you don't see me on your overview or on your D-Scan, so why should I be able to see anyone else on my overview or D-Scan?


you can still warp and can then visually check the sites a little more work yes but you still maintain all the advantage in this system
while your target remains completely oblivious. wecome back to there is no defence
jurgen b
Papal Zouaves
#1403 - 2015-03-09 12:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: jurgen b
Easy sollutions, create new lore where the jovians have found new high TECH or invented new high tech that make it possible to hunt cloaked ships. you need a new set of skeelzz, a type of ship that cant fit weapons but is designed to have a special type of magic stuff scanner combined with some modules to track down cloaked ships :) it's new content :) a skill, a ship and a module \o/

I know the story already. Those cardekian seekers have bumped up on a cloaked ship that was hanging in space, scanned it totaly without the pilot noticing, and then have adapted and build a counter ship/fit/skill for it :) and our explorers of EVE, explore and come to a place where that tech is made and they kill some stuff and blow up some stuff and then loot the BP \o/ and bring it to our empire space. great EVE lore Bear
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#1404 - 2015-03-09 12:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: aquatac
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Not reading all these pages so this may have been mentioned before, but what if the denial of intel caused by cloaking worked both ways?

If I'm cloaked in your system, you don't see me on your overview or on your D-Scan, so why should I be able to see anyone else on my overview or D-Scan?


well that would actually counter the issue already i must admit. But it would disrupt most use cases for cloaked ships at all... just think about Blockade runner for example...

i still like that idea about the new ECM Module more - which would interrupt any cloak device in a given range for a limited time. Cause this would just give us something to deal with cloaks at all - not even in this "ratting" situation - also in Fleet Warfare.

Taking away Local in known space at all would make it more or less unplayable - in many matters not just in view on PVE Activities - - especially in view on the sov changes a decent Intel will be important to organise your headless chickens.


EDIT: In view on AFK Cloakies it would turn the Meta Game to a 2 side Game... just because there is something you can counter with....
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1405 - 2015-03-09 14:01:03 UTC
Your responses suggest a lack of expectation that many find quite obvious.

Grasor wrote:

Nikk Narrel Reasons why local chat is involved:
1. If it wasn't for local chat's warning about hostiles arriving, players would be relying on their own efforts to be aware of threats.
No effort, or not good enough, = kill mail.

RESPONSE from Grasor: Your reason #1 is ridiculous. This whole debate we are having is me saying cloakers should be, at some point, scannable. Here you are saying local is chat is the problem because without it people would be forced to hunt belligerants. Yet you can't currently hunt cloakers.

As has been stated in the past, noone expects local's exclusive intel to simply be removed, but rather that an effort based system replaces it, and being effort based would allow the means to fully hunt cloaked targets.
It would be wildly overpowered to have BOTH local's free intel, as well as a means to hunt cloaked ships, in this context.

Grasor wrote:


Nikk Narrel 3. Without local, no AFK cloaking takes place, as how will the victims know to be afraid if local doesn't tell them?

RESPONSE from Grasor: Your reason #3 does not apply to the problem of cloaking as a whole. I don't care if you are AFK, if you want to be AFK while floating around in space, be my guest/target. I'm arguing that cloaking should not give the cloaker an indefinite period to be immune to being tracked down.

This is not the first time I've had to re-explain this to you. If you aren't going to both read and comprehend my arguments then please stop quoting me and throwing up more of your anti-local chat propaganda. Again, local chat is not the problem with being immune to hunting while cloaked, the cloaking mechanics that allow it are the cause of that problem.

Being subject to risk while being cloaked is not the primary issue, but the secondary one.

Both sides should have effort demanded from them, in order to expect safety.
Right now, neither side has this demand of effort.

It is with no effort that a player can be warned about a hostile entering a system.
It is equally with no effort that a cloaked ship may be free of concerns about being found.

Both sides have a limited amount of preparation and effort to be able to use the free mechanic involved.

And lastly, it is arrogant of you to assume my not agreeing with you indicates a lack of understanding on my part.
I have gone beyond your argument, in pointing out that BOTH sides need to sacrifice in order to gain in other areas.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1406 - 2015-03-09 16:12:31 UTC
Chatles wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Think about it for a second. If local stops showing my avatar and that I'm there and I go AFK then you'll be perfectly 100% safe doing whatever you want to do.

However, with the current mechanic you see that "I am in local" irrespective of whether or not I am AFK or not, and most players will err on the side of caution and assume I am not AFK and stay docked. So while AFK I can keep you from doing anything outside the station.

Removing the current local system actually renders AFK cloaking impotent.

Christ...how may farking times has this been explained?


yes we get that but it seems you have a hard time grasping the following

you are correct afk cloaking becomes impotent
but then hot dropping becomes OMNIPOTENT

how is that a solution?
Now you're simply being obtuse.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Chatles
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1407 - 2015-03-09 17:19:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Chatles
Mag's wrote:
Chatles wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Think about it for a second. If local stops showing my avatar and that I'm there and I go AFK then you'll be perfectly 100% safe doing whatever you want to do.

However, with the current mechanic you see that "I am in local" irrespective of whether or not I am AFK or not, and most players will err on the side of caution and assume I am not AFK and stay docked. So while AFK I can keep you from doing anything outside the station.

Removing the current local system actually renders AFK cloaking impotent.

Christ...how may farking times has this been explained?


yes we get that but it seems you have a hard time grasping the following

you are correct afk cloaking becomes impotent
but then hot dropping becomes OMNIPOTENT

how is that a solution?
Now you're simply being obtuse.


how exactly without local and without a way to find said cloakers how is it not. anti local people here just go remove local.
which alone will make hot dropping cloakers damn near omipotent.


remove local but give me a way to survive too otherwise this wont work. how is me saying this being obtuse?

or if you think i still em give me an example of how em i going to defend myself then.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#1408 - 2015-03-09 17:53:59 UTC
Chatles wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Chatles wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Think about it for a second. If local stops showing my avatar and that I'm there and I go AFK then you'll be perfectly 100% safe doing whatever you want to do.

However, with the current mechanic you see that "I am in local" irrespective of whether or not I am AFK or not, and most players will err on the side of caution and assume I am not AFK and stay docked. So while AFK I can keep you from doing anything outside the station.

Removing the current local system actually renders AFK cloaking impotent.

Christ...how may farking times has this been explained?


yes we get that but it seems you have a hard time grasping the following

you are correct afk cloaking becomes impotent
but then hot dropping becomes OMNIPOTENT

how is that a solution?
Now you're simply being obtuse.


how exactly without local and without a way to find said cloakers how is it not. anti local people here just go remove local.
which alone will make hot dropping cloakers damn near omipotent.


remove local but give me a way to survive too otherwise this wont work. how is me saying this being obtuse?

or if you think i still em give me an example of how em i going to defend myself then.


Are you and your friends lazy? I ask because it sounds like you're all too incompetent to scout your gates and scan down your wormholes. Its not brain surgery. Its easy. Put scouts on your gates. Communicate with each other. Would also help if you paid attention too instead of AFKtaring and watching porn.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#1409 - 2015-03-09 18:01:55 UTC
I am not a huge fan of CCP Fozzies comments, however I am ok with local being removed. Though if they dont allow for some form of cloak detection or early warning system, it really makes it worthless to do anything other than PVP in null. Industry will effectively die, especially with the new suggested sov changes.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#1410 - 2015-03-09 18:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Taram Caldar
The problem isn't the cloaks themselves. It's the fact that a pilot can affect the game play of an entire system's worth of players in nullsec without even being at their computer.

Anyone who denies that this is a thing is deluding themselves. Having a hostile or neutral in system absolutely does impact how players will interact in the system.

1) Most conversations in local chat stop and move to alliance/corp chat (no big deal)
2) If the cloaker is part of an organization known for hot dropping pretty much all PVE activity stops in the system (minor annoyance.... until now)
3) Even if the cloaker isn't part of a known hot-drop outfit people get paranoid and will PVE less (minor annoyance... again... until now.)
4) Pilots will try to bait the cloaker out. (Useless if the guy is afk, they just wasted hours of their time)

The problem isn't that they are cloaked. The problem is the guys who cloak up and go AFK and pilots have no way of knowing if that neut/red in system is actually at the keyboard or not.

In 3 of the 4 situations above the afk pilot is directly impacting the gameplay of other players, without even being at his keyboard. He could be off shagging his wife, he could be at the movies, out playing golf... or even sleeping... his ship, by being cloaked in system, is directly affecting the gameplay of other players.

Now.... up until now... I couldn't have given a rip less about that. But since CCP is now planning to tie the ability to defend sov to PVE activity in a system it is absolutely broken that someone who isn't even at the keyboard has this much ability to impact a system.

As a former Merc who used cloaky tactics extensively (and I still do) I can 100% guarantee that a cloaked pilot in system has all the above stated impacts upon a target system. I've personally driven every PVE pilot out of a system just by sitting around cloaked in there whenever I can be online (I personally never use the AFK tactic but it definitely works as I know plenty of people who do). I've driven systems from military 5 to military 0 plenty of times just by being there, even if I didn't have a hotdrop. Heck, I've used a cloaky alt to do it who couldn't even light a cyno, she just provided warp-ins for our gang when we were in the area.


Now... since I never point out a problem without pointing out a solution:

Simple Fix:
New sov module for towers: EMP Device
Effect: System wide EMP Burst that decloaks ALL ships in the system. Ships can immediately recloak, no timers involved.
Recycle time: 1hr
Pre-requisite: Military Index 5
Pre-Requisite: Strategic Index 3

By requiring sov 3 and military 5 this ensures that relatively lightly used systems do not get to have one of these. It also means that if you manage to drive their military index down they can't use them even if they have them. An outfit has to actively use their systems in order to be able to use them. However, once they have them, they have a means to decloak and remove afk cloakers. Cloakers at the keyboard, however, have absolutely nothing to fear.


For those who state: "Wormholers don't have this problem"
My reply is: Wormholers do not have to defend sovereignty. Nor do they have to worry about a lone cloaker appearing and lighting a cyno on your ass and dropping an entire fleet of dudes on top of you.

Under this new system AFK cloaking is a problem because it has a measurable impact on an entity's ability to defend it's space.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1411 - 2015-03-09 18:31:27 UTC
Taram Caldar wrote:
The problem isn't the cloaks themselves. It's the fact that a pilot can affect the game play of an entire system's worth of players in nullsec without even being at their computer.

Anyone who denies that this is a thing is deluding themselves. Having a hostile or neutral in system absolutely does impact how players will interact in the system.

....

Can affect, AND Will affect, are two different things entirely.

I could describe how I make a cheese sandwich, and have people drooling with hunger, like Pavlov's dogs when they heard a bell ringing.
Maybe they do not have this conditioned reflex, some might.
My point is this, the reaction says more about the one doing the observing, than it does the one being observed.

Here's a quick quiz for you, since you like this topic, and you used the word deluding above:

What do you call someone, who believes something that is not true?
For example, in your post where you specify a player who is not present at all, while others lacking this information, assume that he is paying devoted attention to them.

The term is delusional.

You are blaming the one being observed, with clearly incomplete information available, for the reactions of those doing the observing.

Why don't we give them a better framework to make their decisions, instead of penalizing the player who, quite literally, is doing nothing to cause the reaction.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#1412 - 2015-03-09 18:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Taram Caldar
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Taram Caldar wrote:
The problem isn't the cloaks themselves. It's the fact that a pilot can affect the game play of an entire system's worth of players in nullsec without even being at their computer.

Anyone who denies that this is a thing is deluding themselves. Having a hostile or neutral in system absolutely does impact how players will interact in the system.

....

Can affect, AND Will affect, are two different things entirely.


Why don't we give them a better framework to make their decisions, instead of penalizing the player who, quite literally, is doing nothing to cause the reaction.


One would point out that having observed the impact of a cloaky camper, and having observed the impact of an AFK cloaky camper, that you are making a false argument. The fact is that AFK Cloakers DO impact system activity. No matter how you try to slice that apple it will ALWAYS come out as: An AFK cloaker has a direct impact on system activity.

Up until now this really wasn't a big deal. But now they plan to tie that system activity to the defense of sov space. THAT is a problem. A person not even at their computer should not have such a dramatic ability to impact the defense of a system.

As I sad, I have often been the one DOING the cloaky camping. So arguing that it doesn't work is stupid. It does, anyone with half a brain knows it does and that's why so many people do it. Personally it's never bothered me (until now) since I make my isk in ways a cloaky camper can't impact. But now they can affect an alliance's ability to defend it's space. And, thus... it's a balance issue that needs to be adressed. Stating that you can counter it by flying in fleets is EXACTLY the problem. Allowing 1 person who isn't even at the computer to directly impact the gameplay of pilots who ARE at the computer, is broken.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1413 - 2015-03-09 19:13:05 UTC
Taram Caldar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Taram Caldar wrote:
The problem isn't the cloaks themselves. It's the fact that a pilot can affect the game play of an entire system's worth of players in nullsec without even being at their computer.

Anyone who denies that this is a thing is deluding themselves. Having a hostile or neutral in system absolutely does impact how players will interact in the system.

....

Can affect, AND Will affect, are two different things entirely.


Why don't we give them a better framework to make their decisions, instead of penalizing the player who, quite literally, is doing nothing to cause the reaction.


One would point out that having observed the impact of a cloaky camper, and having observed the impact of an AFK cloaky camper, that you are making a false argument. The fact is that AFK Cloakers DO impact system activity. No matter how you try to slice that apple it will ALWAYS come out as: An AFK cloaker has a direct impact on system activity.

Up until now this really wasn't a big deal. But now they plan to tie that system activity to the defense of sov space. THAT is a problem. A person not even at their computer should not have such a dramatic ability to impact the defense of a system.

As I sad, I have often been the one DOING the cloaky camping. So arguing that it doesn't work is stupid. It does, anyone with half a brain knows it does and that's why so many people do it. Personally it's never bothered me (until now) since I make my isk in ways a cloaky camper can't impact. But now they can affect an alliance's ability to defend it's space. And, thus... it's a balance issue that needs to be adressed. Stating that you can counter it by flying in fleets is EXACTLY the problem. Allowing 1 person who isn't even at the computer to directly impact the gameplay of pilots who ARE at the computer, is broken.

You are missing my point.

Right now, the default reaction is to effectively not play, under the condition of hostile presence.

That is a reactive effect, and it is resulting in loss of gameplay.

Let's introduce mechanics that these afflicted players can use, and still play.
And I mean both sides of this issue, so long as they are attempting play that is focused and alert.

The PvE craft, too often, are not combat capable to the level of confidence needed to oppose a cloaked ship.
We are NOT comparing them to front line PvP hulls here, but covert cloak wielding hulls most likely to evade a gate camp and whatever roams exist.
Bring that mining or ratting ship to the same level, and make it clear that good fitting choices mean solid chances to win a fight.
1v1 or XvX, where equal numbers are present.

Also, make hot dropping less of a threat, by introducing a spool-up effect.

Remember, everyone loses when we are too afraid to risk playing.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
aquatac
Galaxy Investment
#1414 - 2015-03-09 19:41:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Let's introduce mechanics that these afflicted players can use, and still play.
And I mean both sides of this issue, so long as they are attempting play that is focused and alert.



About nothing else we talk the whole time - something to counter - so that it is a 2 sided Game.

Nikk Narrel wrote:


The PvE craft, too often, are not combat capable to the level of confidence needed to oppose a cloaked ship.
We are NOT comparing them to front line PvP hulls here, but covert cloak wielding hulls most likely to evade a gate camp and whatever roams exist.
Bring that mining or ratting ship to the same level, and make it clear that good fitting choices mean solid chances to win a fight.
1v1 or XvX, where equal numbers are present.

Also, make hot dropping less of a threat, by introducing a spool-up effect.

Remember, everyone loses when we are too afraid to risk playing.


Cloaks are not only in PVE an issue... also if you extend Ships with more Slots grid or whatever - it will be countered by the opposite again...

Just give us that damn 1 AU Anti Stealth Impulse - and all is good.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#1415 - 2015-03-09 20:30:36 UTC
Quote:

Bring that mining or ratting ship to the same level, and make it clear that good fitting choices mean solid chances to win a fight.


My only real issue with this is that it seems a bit unfair to the PVE side. Where a cloak ship might be weaker than a front line PVP ship, it is still perfectly fitting to do it's job. I am not really fond of the idea that the PVE player must be the one to bend and sacrifice its efficency.

In the long run it makes no difference but I dont like the idea.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1416 - 2015-03-09 21:50:06 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
jesus f**kin christ...

1) AFK cloakers should NOT affect PvE (the underlined word here is key)

2) Non-AFK cloakers do currently affect PvE purely because they can bring in a fleet seemingly out of know where, and literally zero ships in the game can survive a well executed gank. Including supercarriers and Titans.

3) The Pro-afk cloaky group say to scout your systems and keep an eye on wormholes within range. Firstly that's monumentally naive knee-jerk reactionary comment. Why? well here's 2 very normal non-extreme examples of why this is the case:

- http://evemaps.dotlan.net/range/Widow,5/2PG-KN a nice truesec double dead ended system in nullsec, great for ratting and making money to fund PvP, and to do so you'd have to cover 120 systems from possible blops hotdropping and constantly recheck them from new wormholes popping up.

- http://evemaps.dotlan.net/range/Widow,5/PR-8CA a nice NPC Nullsec systems with a station and a rather sizable radius. with 133 systems in Blops range, PLUS the ability to hold all your blops and bombers in station a mere 10 seconds before you need to light the cyno. Blops bridge from the station undock and dock the blops up straight away.

4) The Anti-afk cloaky group say they need stuff to decloak afk campers. Why? because its too difficult to come up with something to defend themselves. Now the phrase "defend themselves" is not against that single cloaky camping bomber, but against the gang that he inevitably cynos in. The Pro-afk cloaky group typically retorts with:

"How about you have a defence force protecting you?" Well because:

a) it is simply is not viable having 20 people protecting 1 system when currently null sec systems are pretty much capped at a maximum person limit to making isk.
b) The isk making is further diluted by the social convention of having to actually reward and split earnings made with the force protecting you. Even if you time share the defensive duties it ends up being identical for the time put in. It actually becomes practically inferior to say mining in highsec for the isk/hour and effort involved, and completely disincentivises the entire point to the activity.

The root cause of this problem is NOT the cloak, or the local chat. its the CYNO. Period.

CCP Fozzie's reactionary comment about AFK camping not being an issue in wormhole space is waaaay off the mark. And I'm sure on reflection he probably regrets it too.

We should all realise the reason afk cloaky campers work in k-space as opposed to w-space is that you can hotdrop in k-space. NOT that you have local.

Simply removing local to a state similar to wormholes WILL NOT solve the issue. It will in fact exacerbate it (make it worse).
Chatles
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1417 - 2015-03-09 23:13:00 UTC
hey go with that guy remove hot drops problem solved.
i think is a much better way to deal with this than removing local

all that dread over that instantaneous overwhelming force goes away cloaky campers still affect the system as they are still able to scram you and provide a warp in so you are now also vulnerable but able to maybe survive, many will still leave system as a result but cant please everyone.

so that fozzy line about there needing to be a way to affect us making isk is still there

i can now consider this risk acceptable as having a cloaky decloak on me is not an instantaneous death sentence.

everybody wins. well except that blops guy, he is stuck with a useless ship.

but that looks like it solves far more of the problems than removing local, at least is doesnt make any of em worse.
Mac Chicovski
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
#1418 - 2015-03-09 23:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mac Chicovski
I'm not in love with cloaky campers in any game, and eve is no different. But, how about increasing the reward given the additional risk of the enemy?

Just off the top of my head:


  1. Let truesec reflect the actual risk of the system. So,
    2. * If there are enemy fleets roaming through it, decrease the truesec of all systems in a Constellation by -.01*(ship class) per jumped ship. (So, enemy frigs get a ship class bonus of 1, cruisers get 2, BS get 4, capitals get 5)
    * Decrease the truesec of a system by -.01 per enemy ship per hour of enemy camping.
    * Decrease the truesec of a constellation by .1 per 250m killed.
    * Let truesec return to normal at a rate of .1 per day.
    * Maybe increase the indexes of a System or Constellation based on PvP kills as well.
  2. Give a ratting bounty and mining bonus, maxed out to some level based on actual losses (to avoid 'insurance scams').
  3. Work in the wardec system in some way (although you'd have to remove highsec wardec assistance to these kinds of wars).
    4. * Perhaps you could do a new nullsec insta-wardec (has no effect in highsec) to start tracking the losses, and then you'd use the war losses as the base of the ratting bonuses, which decay after a week.


That last case is reasonably strong, since it would cost ISK for a wardec, and the bonuses could be limited to ISK killed, which would help avoid insurance scams.

-Mac
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#1419 - 2015-03-09 23:31:41 UTC
I have a serious question for people who are against these AFK cloakers.

Is it more the intelligence you're worried about, or the ganking, or the possibility of a huge cyno?

Would you be more comfortable with a cyno-fit uncloaked ship moving AFK from a safe at a speed high enough that you cannot land on grid with it by the time you scan it down and warp?

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#1420 - 2015-03-09 23:52:31 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I have a serious question for people who are against these AFK cloakers.

Is it more the intelligence you're worried about, or the ganking, or the possibility of a huge cyno?

Would you be more comfortable with a cyno-fit uncloaked ship moving AFK from a safe at a speed high enough that you cannot land on grid with it by the time you scan it down and warp?


My issue has always been that cloak provides too much safety. That once in a system, a cloak pilot really has to use very little effort at all to accomplish his goal.

Would I be more happy with a cyno fit normal ship. Of course. I have a way of tracking that person and with effort I can engage them in a fight. No matter how much effort I put into locating a cloaky. I will never find them unless they wish to be found.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)