Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Completely nonsensical argument.

If you die on your way to deep blue territory PvP was not prevented. It happened, just not when, where or with whom you wished.

If you won't even try because you can't engage non-combat craft when and where you wish, then it's you who are risk adverse.

Of course *everyone* is risk adverse, because part of the core design in this game is that decisions have consequences. If you aren't considering and acting in accordance with consequences then you either so rich it does not matter, or too unintelligent to play.

Expecting the people you want to shoot to stick around so you can do so unchallenged is ludicrous.

Expecting to create a situation where you cut the value of their homes in half with no way to contest you is not in keeping with the design of eve, or excusable in any way as good gameplay.

Every time you spout the drivel that AFK cloaking is harmless and can't hurt anyone you are being disingenuous. Whenever you try and support it with "but pvp!" you are simply trying to excuse an unbalanced double standard where everyone is subject to nonconsensual PvP except the cloaked camper. Ratters and miners die every day, not all of them to cloaked campers.

It may be balanced because the Devs said so with a hearty F.U. to anyone who prefers any style of play except direct combat, but that is as far as the logically supported arguments go.

Everyone is risk adverse because your definition of risk adverse seems to be flying in any fashion that attempts to mitigate danger of any kind.

And no. Killing Local isn't an option. It's a troll response designed to look reasonable while being one of the stupidest ideas to ever float to the top of the cesspool.

I am sure that when you lived in your wormholes you just flew blindly into every potential trap regardless of the probable danger.

Even if you did, can you explain how turning the whole game into a worse version of the least popular portion of it is a good thing?

How about we just drop the double standard, make those using cloaks huntable with an equivalent ship, and let people who want to stay in space AFK all day suffer the consequences of natural selection.

This is a dedicated PvP game. The person choosing to PvP will always have an advantage over someone wanting to do nothing but PvE. That's the way EVE is designed.

There is no sure thing as pure PvE in EVE. My issue is people like you who don't understand that concept.

I actually spend a decent chunk of time PvE-ing, I just actually understand what game I am playing if I even remotely suspect an unfriendly is nearby I either move systems or refit to PvP just in case.

And yes, the people who want to shoot stuff always have an advantage over people who don't want to.

When I am cloaked it is mechanically impossible to shoot anyone, so again, no big deal. It's literally the same thing as someone being 100% safe in a POS or station.

Following your logic of 'no one should be 100% safe even if they can't shoot you' we should get rid of POS reinforcement timers too, right?

Just as a general note, the word is "averse," not "adverse." TIA.



This isn't responsive to anything at all, to the extent that I don't even know why it's coming up in a thread about AFK cloaking.

Any PVE player who thinks they shouldn't have to worry about PVP will likely die horribly, because they don't believe they should be troubled by the possibility, and their belief makes them sitting ducks.

Any PVE player who, by their tactics, makes themselves hard to catch or kill has, by definition, engaged in PVP of the cat-and-mouse variety (the cat wins by killing the mouse; the mouse wins by getting away). You're acting like yours is the One True Way to react to being hunted, but that's not how this game works. If someone running a site is on the ball enough to get out before you can tackle them, good for them. Their active play won the contest to determine the outcome of the encounter.

If you're ~demanding~ that they refit to stand and fight, despite their knowing as well as you do that the attacker has the advantage as a rule (or they wouldn't attack) then you're just blowing hot air. It takes two to tango. If the defender doesn't want to tango, and if they can enforce their wishes better and faster than you can enforce yours, it just sucks to be you. That's PVP.

As for AFK cloaking itself, I think it's a corner case involving several all-or-nothing mechanics in EVE, and the more general problem is that all-or-nothing mechanics are not generally good design. Camouflaged hunters are definitely a thing that EVE should have, but as with a number of things in EVE the implementation is a combination of ham-fisted and late-alpha-quality (D-scan).

Where the guard analogy fails is that he is in play, and having an effect on the active play of others, while afk.

There are at least two problems with saying that both sides should have an equal chance at winning.

1- It first discounts the value of all the factors and efforts put into making that space secure. Your starting point for the conflict begins with your coming into the system. The system was chosen because it was difficult for hostiles to access. By saying the invulnerable cloaked camp is reasonable you are saying the efforts spent to secure that space are not reasonable. Basically you are saying that until the moment you arrived looking for a fight all other gameplay didn't matter and it's value was zero.

2- the two sides are not using the same definition of victory. Few people, if anyone, undocks for the chance to 'get away'. Victory conditions are based on achieving a goal. The goal on one side is kill the other guy, the goal on the other side is doing something else. We have a situation where the outcome can only be won on one side, or lost on both.

well to me it is simple, and you all are making it more than a tad complicated.
This is not to discuss who would win in a match up or how to even it out. No income in null versus High. although it is a part of the reason behind the discussion.
This is to deal with the effects of an inactive player on active play.
Simple, Make it scannable. It can be hard, it can take skill. but make it where is one is cloaked and active they can easily avoid detection.
If you are cloaked and inactive. you should be able to be found, destroyed or humiliated in some eve savy fashion.
if you think about it, it would open the door to more traps and counters.
I also believe in the changing of how we receive intel.
However dissolving this discussion into semantics will only prevent change not encourage it.
Change is needed. once we get the establishment to understand that change is needed and desired - then we can work on how it should be changed.

Then be a guard... ACTIVELY. Nobody gives a crap if you want to spend your time hassling people, but it's the fact that you don't even have to play yet you get to have an effect, that's the issue.

Your suggestions would overwhelming tip the balance in the favour of cloaked "hunters", making actual hunting ships obsolete, while simultaneously throwing a massive hammer down on nullsec income.

Cat and mouse is how these games work between someone who wishes to fight and someone who doesn't. Forcing a fight so the hunter is always the winner doesn't make good gameplay.

Careful Kettle, calling folks a troll while trolling can make you look sillier than you already do.

PvE do reship to combat fits, but that rarely results in a fight. Mostly they run and hide, wasting everyone's time. After a while they stop reshipping because it's pointless. Mostly it's newer players that do this because they haven't been worn down by that cycle yet.

Stations and POS are structures intended to provide safety to assets. Thus the many statements of "you consent to pvp when you undock". Cloaks are used while undocked, thus they should have some way of having PvP pushed on them even when active, though it need not be a random utility high mod on any ship.

You have already made your position clear though. The sandbox is all yours and everyone not playing your way can take a flying leap.

Oh? The best asset?

I am going to assume you are trolling on the local is an asset thing.

Here's a thing... Local isn't owned by anyone. It's not my asset, it's not your asset. It just exists as part of the game environment.

It's almost like complaining the stars themselves are invulnerable.

Bad troll was bad.