Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have looked and can't find them. Please put up some links concerning cloaks by some blue names.

Assuming you get the link working, that's fair enough. I've never heard them directly address the issue personally.

I still have problems with the way that there is no counter to them, but if it's how they want it, cool. Eventually I'll move on to another game over things like that.

It's not an issue of relax or don't relax.

It's a fundamental problem with the direction gameplay has been headed for years. The game is so hilariously biased towards toxic player interactions like ganking and farming industry ships for PvP content. I am now sorry I renewed my subscription a few days ago. I will likely not do so again.

I signed up a long time ago for a science fiction sandbox rpg. What I have is a domestic abusers paradise. The core ideas of the game appeal to me, but not the way they have been allowed to grow and then encouraged toward victimizing PvE pilots.

To have them acknowledge afk cloaking and give it a pass despite its fundamental clash with the core concepts of the game solely because it enables the continued farming of industry and and other PvE pilots is just the very end. I don't want to play that game.

Rende,

Maybe you should listen to CCP Fozzie's comments from June 2015. Should help clear up what CCP's thinking is regarding AFK cloaking and cloaks in general.

And looks at what the OA is likely to do...i.e. let you find AFK cloakers. Although local will most likely become vulnerable.

For God's sake Mike. You are complaining about people camping "your" system. Now you want it deployable wherever you go?

The idea is that in "your" space you can get back to the same intel you had (actually better). Not that you get the same intel you have in "your" space, but also in "my" space, Nikk's space, and everyone else's space (unless you do it in a cloaky hauler and deploy one). All that rubbish about securing your space was just that, wasn't it. Pure rubbish you through out to make it look like you were interested in balanced mechanics. Now you aren't. Not only do you want to feel more secure in your space, but in anybody else's space too.

It will allow you to find that cloaked pilot if he is AFK. If he is not, you wont, but then again that wasn't the problem. And this is actually becoming more the sandbox it was intended to be. Now people can have their intel and customize it so it works best for what they need at the time. Just like when you fit a ship.

And again, by definition AFK cloaking is not absusive. We have CCP Fozzie saying it is not and that it is a great way to disrupt PvE activities.

And lastly, can I have your stuff?

If he is AFK he is not threatening you. And look at what you are saying, you wan to fight an AFK player.

Why can't I do the same if he is docked?



I don't think you get what sandbox means. It means the above is not only not abusive it is an intended feature of the game. If you really feel deep down it is abusive....wrong game for you.

And no, you are not expected to fly a loot pinata, but if you choose to do so you can't complain that eventually somebody will come along and take a whack at you.

100% agree. Teckos Pech is being dumb by making the argument "If he is afk he is not a threat." The "afk" cloaked guy could come back at any second and attack. There should be a way to force the conflict.

I'm starting to think that Teckos Pech is a troll because there is no way someone can be this dense and not see the game balance issue.

I was going to restrain myself but I really have to pitch in now. I am indeed beginning to suspect we have a troll amonst us.

"how can a player hurt you if he's AFK and cloaked" REALLY?? Not this again, for f'cks sake! This has been debated, tackled and should not be brought up over and over again.

"yeah but I want to do the same thing to DOCKED players" well guess what, in Sov null you REVOKE THEIR DOCKING RIGHTS. In NPC null or lowsec, that's a different matter but then again, it seems fairly straightforward that a docked player is not sneaking up on you, and is thus less of a threat. "Yeah but he can still do market transactions and watch local and therefore is no different than a cloaked ship" is what you're about to say am I right? So? What good is watching local if you're not seeing what they're in or where they are?

"Anchor an OA" cool, in SOV null. What about NPC null, lowsec, highsec warfare? In what kind of balance does it take an anchorable, undoubtedly expensive structure to counter a 1 million ISK module?

Uncertainty is indeed a feature and I can live and adapt to changes in the local channel; but I don't think CCP will get rid of local in highsec, or lowsec, or NPC null. In YOUR sovereign space, in YOUR wormhole -- sure! Sounds like a fun mechanic and kinda looking forward to it.

As I stated before: changing local is once thing. Changing the indefinite and complete protection grated by the cloak is another. It has nothing to do with uncertainty, is has everything to do with the proactive player versus the AFK player. When both are active, you still won't be able to pinpoint the cloaker. When one is AFK, you could kill it.

But, alas ... some folks around would have me believe "the link between local and cloaking is obvious and I'm too stupid to grasp that", while it is in fact this so-called "trivially obvious" connection that is under heavy fire. Attacking anybody who dares question the validity of this connection is not going to further the discussion.

I believe Nikk is on to something, by virtue of separating both and discussing the implications of both independantly: cloaks ought to be somewhat vulnerable and that alone solves the whole AFK cloaking problem. Whilst on the other hand acknowledging that a change to local chat opens up more options for stealthy gameplay (and this, I shall add, by both cloaked and non-cloaked vessels).

Yet, this latest circlejerk revolves around sovereign null. It stands to reason an alliance, having laid claim to a system, has the upper hand in terms of intel. This OA structure, if deployable in wormholes, will also cater to the residents there. In all other locations of the map however, AFK gameplay (read: docked in station) and cloaks are completely disconnected. The only reason there is no perceived problem in those areas of space, is because the ratting is not worth it and therefore, there are fewer juicy ratting Marauders to hunt. No prey, no hunters.

As to "why can't I force conflict upon a guy who is docked" ..... well to be honest, I'd have to agree with you on that one as far as (highsec) warfare is concerned. Otherwise, however, there is no basis to assume said docked player is even in possession of a ship; and he's definitely not in one. While there may be some merit to the general idea, it is yet a third separate topic.

Now to get back on track:

YES, *any* ship in space should be considered a threat. Docked ships pose a threat of their own as well but that does not invalidate the former statement.

NO, it's not about 100% security. People having ships in stations are fine. After all, not everywhere I go is "my" space, nor is every space claimable as such.

NO, the issue does not solely occur in sov null.

YES, stealth would imply that nobody even knows you're there. Yet, automatically assuming CCP plans to remove local is a huge leap of faith. I for one believe local will remain as-is everywhere except in sov null.

YES, putting in the effort to make sure your local system is clear before going about your business is the smart thing to do.

NO, there is currently no way to put in this effort.

NO, going elsewhere or assuming he's out-of-timezone is not an acceptable counter. When not playing is that system is your only option, you've pretty much lost said system. This is true in high/low/nullsec : the moment you have no other option but to pack your bags and leave, you have been defeated.

NO, you cannot coin an observatory array as a counter to cloaks and call it balanced without giving us more information about the size/cost/requirements/anchoring requirements of said array.

YES, securing your corner of space implies shooting hostiles, including cloaked hostiles. Why is it whenever somebody suggests cloaked ships ought to be shootable, the person wanting to shoot the hostile is called "risk averse" and "not wanting conflict"?

YES, a player who is not paying attention ("AFK") should have a chance to die out there. He can safely log off or he can dock if he has the rights to do so.



I am beginning to suspect the most vocal advocates in favour of cloak immunity, lobbying for even more power to stealth, are deliberately obfuscating the thread by making the very people wanting to go out and PvP (rather than suffering a stupid loss) sound like carebears. Any and every proposal intended to require even the slightest effort from the part of the cloaker, if only to ensure he's not AFK, gets wiped off the table or bogged down by dragging local chat into the discussion.

On top of that, anybody who points out impracticalities or imbalances between the effort needed to stalk your prey versus the effort needed to counter that threat gets slapped in the face with "but how much of a threat can I be, since I'm cloaked and possibly not even at my keyboard?"

Bogus! These arguments have had so many holes poked in them you may start considering we could be right about this?

So not AFK then? Glad we cleared that up.

Brokk, I'm sorry you find facts problematic.

No ship in game has died to:

An AFK player.
A player using a ship that is cloaked.
An AFK cloaked player.

You see, you cannot target or activate modules while cloaked or AFK. Ever.

Regarding docking rights:

What about NPC null? Low sec? Can't reduce docking rights there. And even in sov Null, he could undock once and come kill me.

Yes, it is completely ridiculous...but then that is true of the naive anti-AFK cloaking crowd. They don't say, "Oh, it is a terrible form of game play, we need to get rid of it yet still encourage player interaction." No, it is all just one-sided. Nerf cloaks because I want to rat without having to worry about that guy who has been in system for 16 hours.

Regardig OAs:

FFS, go read the thread. OA's will have almost surely have use in wormholes...thus they may very well have use in NPC NS too.

As for the cost, so what? Cost is rarely seen as a method of balance because there is so much ISK in the game economy its staggering. Do you know how much ISK enters the game economy now? Serious question. And I'm pretty sure the OA is going to cost less than TCUs, IHUBs and the various system upgrades.

As for the debate about the connection between local and AFK cloaking....

There is only a debate because some people deny the obvious.

Suppose local is delayed as in w-space: Will people AFK cloak? Only incidentally to take a bio, grab a sandwich, answer the phone, etc. It will have precisely zero tactical or strategic value.

Suppose cloaks are removed from the game: I hope this one needs no explanation.

Based on both of those above it seems pretty obvious and trivial to me that AFK cloaking is only a Thing™ because of local.

Addressing AFK cloaking by nerfing cloaks:

Nerfing cloaks will solve the AFK problem, but why should people who use cloaks for things other than AFK cloaking have their game nerfed? I have only very, very rarely AFK cloaked. But, I do use cloaks alot. Why should my use of cloaks be nerfed? You are nerfing my game and my play style for something I have not done. It is as stupid and short sighted as the dingbats who want to put captcha's into the game to thwart bots, or Gevlon Goblin's brain dead idea of PvE fatigue so that people don't play the game too long and to thwart bots. Nerfing any aspect of the game to get at a small subset of players is stupid and lazy.

And FFS, we don't need even more ISK entering the game. To the extent that some players are prevented from ratting in anomalies...good! Personally, I'd like to see it curtailed even more. But that discussion is a bit off topic.