Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Or simply remove the fear that the cloaked player is an overwhelming threat.

If the potential threat to the PvE player is manageable, then they can stand their ground and keep operating.

The PvE player is not leaving because the other player is cloaked.
The PvE player is leaving because they believe the other player is an unmanageable threat.

You rephrased my argument, in a manner that effectively accuses me of having malicious intentions.

First and foremost, I am the guy sitting in a mining barge. Exhumer if I feel confidant about surviving.
I don't have the personal freedom to play the same long hours as many others do. But I can take that time which I do have, and compete on the quality of my effort.

I want to know, that my attention to detail, and my willingness to be attentive to the game, will translate into meaningful results with mining. I don't have that right now, as it is trivially easy to notice a new name appear and get safe.
I want my fellow miners to either match my level of play, or fall by the wayside, while my efforts are validated with better results.

If I have to, I am happy to jump into a cloaked ship, and go into hostile territory, and decimate my counterparts there.
I can't really do that now, as the current system at best only feeds me the few who are not seriously playing.
Anyone prepared and alert PvE pilot, can avoid any hostile, myself included, reliably.


If PvE gets the same free ride as it had before, any effort I make beyond what is needed will be an utter waste of my time.
I am not competing against another player, I am only required to beat the clock by getting safe before the hostile can stop me.

Good enough really is good enough, right now. Superior effort on either side has little meaning.

The problem is that EVE is about (or supposed to be about) being a challenging environment. When a player can cloak up and retain 100% safety while they sleep while still having the same effect on the space they are attacking, there's obviously a mechanics issue there.

Judging by what CCP have suggested they are aiming to have as minimal an impact on active cloakers as they possibly can.

You are cherry picking one specific item out of the four which keeps ships safe.
(Bearing in mind, that all ships get kicked out of the game daily at the same time, so in truth everyone gets kicked eventually)

If we ignore the player needs to step away from the game, and not loose progress, this game will encounter notable diminishing returns to player effort.

1. Logged out.
The argument against this: What, they have a ship that ceases to exist, simply because they wanted to take a break from the game? AND this even includes ships not capable of regular docking, giving them the same safety as everyone else?
NOTE: Thanks to conflict timers, logging out is less useful for those seeking to evade a conflict, than other options might be.
(You might not be in the game, but your ship remains until the timer either expires, or it is blown up, whichever happens first)

2. Docked in a Station / NPC Outpost.
The argument against this: They are still sitting in space, even if it is inside another big thing sitting in space. Why can't we dock in the same station, and sabotage / assassinate / blow up others in the same place? It makes it sound like we are all locked into our own padded cells there, where we can ship spin, see a list of our fellow inmates, and order online products from each other.

3. Cloaked in space.
The argument against this: Already provided by this thread, as well as many others. Sponsored by fear of the unknown.

4. Sitting behind POS shields.
The argument against this: Sure, we can blow these things up, ONCE the timer expires. Newsflash, the game will have logged them out between when that timer started, and when it expires. Even if they keep logging back in, they will be given clear and obvious notification that they need to relocate. Added to which, they can see other ships on the overview, PvE boost for ships halfway across the system, and make mean faces.

The argument against cloaking shows up as a result of profit motivation. Others claiming idealistic goals such as realistic and absolute risk for all in space, tend to quietly ignore all of the three other methods in constant use.

The game needs cloaks, for the simple reason we need both scouting, as well as a method to preserve progress achieved in otherwise hostile space.

If you want to resolve the real problem behind so-called AFK Cloaking, remove the need for PvE to run from cloaked players, citing them as overwhelming force as the reason.
Once PvE can stand their ground, cloaking becomes no more than I suspect it was intended to be.

(1) You catch them at bottleneck locations, such as gates. Otherwise, you must rely on player error for them to be exposed.
(As player error is accepted as means to catch PvE targets in this context, it must need to be acceptable on the other side too)

(2) There are four ways to be AFK, one of which actually involves disconnecting from the game. All four involve preserving the ship, once the individual requirements are met. Cloaking is only one of these.

(3) In order to launch such an attack, resulting in the kill mail and loot, the first step is always the same. The cloak gets turned off, and the ship becomes exposed and vulnerable to any normal attack.
Expecting risk, and experiencing imminent clear and present danger, are not the same thing.

(4) Make my mining barge able to fight on the same level as a Force Recon. Include reasonable expectation that a cyno appearing on grid allows me time to react and counter. I won't need to run, because I like the idea of mining with benefits.
(full load of ore, and a kill mail bonus, who wouldn't like that?)

(5) Under current circumstances, you can't catch a miner who is both prepared and alert. Increasing the number of targets noone can catch is not adding content.
If we are building mechanics around requiring player error, that is news to me.

As you just said : In fact you said to catch colloquy people you must wait an error of him. But you have no problem to said it's a broken mechanic if to catch pve/miner after nerf you must hope an error ? You are a troll. In fact you just hope to troll this post to make it will be close, i have understand your tactic: all your argument are irrelevant.


Nerf perma cloacking don't nerf active cloack , more strategical thing to do. More risk vs reward for defender and for attacker. More fun for all people.

And make mining barge as powerful as a recon ship : Not the solution, and pve ship ? In fact you proof one thing : You know remove local and aft cloack are broken mechanic for eve (see wh). But you try to make it just for our own fun, you don't think to the game. You think for you only.

Ok, here is a valid point.
What content is created by AFK Cloaking?

The answer, as you may expect, is NONE.

BUT, and this is a glossed over part too often, it is not supposed to be responsible for content creation.
It is intended, I believe, to be a means of placing future content in a protected state.

If a cloaked player shows up, and the PvE players he came to harass all go and hide, it does NOT signal a requirement for the cloaked player to leave.
Rather, it is expected that his logging out is a pointless option, as the moment he logs back in again, the process of PvE players hiding simply and predictably is repeated.

The genuine issue is rather that this future content being preserved, will be initiated with little warning to the PvE player, who also expects the content to be an overwhelming attack which has only their kill mail as an outcome.

The PvE player wants to avoid the content, because they expect that they cannot win the fight.
THIS is the real problem, the too often correct perception that a cloaked player would win in a fight against a PvE player.

We are debating whether to forcibly remove the cloaked player, removing content entirely, or allow one sided content to remain.

Why aren't we trying to make the content something everyone would want to have instead?
Where the PvE player gets to have a genuine chance at winning, with neither side having an objective reason to believe one side would usually win.


No, there exists no such objective need.

Decloaking equals effective ejection from the system, removing the potential content.
Logging off was explained as useless in the section above.

We want content, but we want it to be objectively balanced, not a threat which deters one side from wanting it to happen at all.

It is the prerequisite of the cloak, whether they choose to stop cloaking.
The SAME way that it is the prerequisite of the PvE player whether they undock with a hostile name listed in the system.

Why are you addressing one side of this exclusively?
It may be a stalemate, but it is undeniably balanced, since that is a key defining point of a stalemate in this context.

The best way I can see to moving this forward, is have both sides want the encounter with each other, and leave the combat fit PvP hulls out of it.

If you want broken, then make cloaking pointlessly without potential of reward, and see it stop that side of content creation entirely.
Loss of content, is not a good end result.
Fixing and creating mutually desired content is.

I'm genuinely sorry, I did not understand your reply.

Were you defending PvE players reshipping into PvP hulls in response to cloaked ships?
Were you saying PvE ships should be more combat capable?

Try to count how many people you need in 1 system of 0.5 AU to decloack 1 perma cloack.
Count how many people you need to take a system now and after froze sov. You see the problem ? Perma clock is a broken mechanic because you have no counter (yes after making count you will understand to be sure to decloack one people we have no enough player in the game, and we will crash server.)


Outpost are conquerable. And after froze sov destructible. So all you argument are now down : Agree with nerf perma cloack , or you want to continue to said "it's game mechanic" but game mean all people can take fun, people who are camped don't take fun and a lot stop play the game time of the camp : lot of fun . So t's not a game mechanic but a broken mechanic.

Argument of : disrupt big brother => Entosis link, prime time and new sov.
Argument of : i want easy kill mail => Risk Vs reward.


All thing make: We must nerf perma cloack.


French expression for this kind of argument who you send : Bad faith (mauvaise foi) . Means people who send argument but they know they are not true argument and just try to make a justification of they're act.