These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3361 - 2015-10-02 19:38:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You have never been on a long deployment then apparently. I've had a cloaky in space for days on end. When I would get done doing what needed to be done, I'd log in space.


I have two characters ATM who haven't docked since the beginning of August.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3362 - 2015-10-03 14:43:12 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There are no existing mechanics to deal with a cloaked ship.

You can:

1. Fly Suicidal. Completely unreasonable considering you won't even consider being vulnerable for 10 seconds upon logging in at a random time of your choosing.

2. Fly crippled for PvE. Completely unreasonable until there is way to combat what's causing the issue. Regardless if it's flying with escorts, flying with a compromised PvP competitive fit, for many players this will drop profits well below that of a high sec income, which is itself unreasonable for the level of risk inherent in operating in Null Sec.

3. Simply not play. That can mean moving over a system or two, or just plain not play at all. Either way the space with the cloaked camper is worth only half(ish) what it was, and since it's impossible to bring aggression to the person cutting your profits there is exactly no point in even being there at all. Rigged games where it's impossible to win are not fun.

All other 'counters' require the cloaked pilot to make both grievous errors *and* be really unlucky. You can bait them- requiring the pilot to choose to participate, catch them at gates- requiring the pilot to choose to move, or just running into them by chance- pretty much requiring the pilot to choose to fly up close enough to kiss

That situation is not balanced except by Dev Fiat. All that has been asked is the ability to bring PvP to the person contesting the right to use the space. That's supposed to be how the sandbox works.


/sigh. We have been over this Mike. Fitting a point to your PvE ship doesn't "cripple PvE". Stop being so dramatic. Hell, I've ratted in null in a PvP fit drake as bait before, but you can't bother to PvE in ANY PvP ship? Jesus.

Yet again, go back to WoW please.



Great job ignoring any playstyle but your own. PvE pilots in general, and I in specific, do not care about making kills when we are doing PvE. Putting a point on my ship will not cripple my fit, but neither does it do anything at all to make my ship more capable of surviving a PvP encounter. I know this is hard to understand... but I don't care if the other guy runs so long as I survive and can continue doing what I want to do. That's the beauty of the S A N D B O X, you can play how you want to play.

My chosen solution is to simply keep aggressors out of the space where I wish to PvE, allowing a more profitable fitting on PvE ships and actually making as much or more than when doing the equivalent activities in the much safer High Sec. In a balanced system you should be free to attempt to break that security, but I should be free to attempt to create it. Your PvP content is thus created with defense fleets, not against the PvE ships directly unless there really is no one guarding that space, or you actually win through with superior tactics instead of garbage mechanics. With cloaks as they are, it's impossible to even attempt because it's impossible to secure and hold space under the mechanics involving cloaking. It makes most of what is supposed to be the appeal of Null Sec completely pointless. If you can't secure and control it, it's not yours.

I fully respect the right of people who wish to hunt me to do so. I simply ask for the right to a level playing field rather than having to abandon my own preference entirely based on you decided I should not be able to and mechanics that allow you to enforce that with zero effort or risk, indefinitely. If I wanted to hunt people, I would be doing that already. I don't mind needing to hunt people as a precursor to doing what I like better-- however, mechanics that let you simply decide that you automatically cut all profits by around 50% (in general well below high sec levels) in a way that is completely unable to be challenged is not balanced by any reasonable standard.
Def Nota Wox
Doomheim
#3363 - 2015-10-04 07:30:01 UTC
Might already be in here somewhere, but here's Feyd's sonar proposal tl;dr version:


Add a new probe type that's uses with Expanded Probe Launcher. This probe would only pick up signatures of cloaked ships.
A bookmark placed on a warpable signature would be placed within 25km of the surface of a sphere originating on the cloaked ship with radius 100km.

Enter new module: Subspace Disturbance Detector
Midslot (maybe?) module that allows ships fitted with it to open a new DScan-esque window.

The window functions basically like DScan in the way you use the camera and degree field of view to aim it. It would have a max range of 100km
The main difference is that it doesn't give distances or any readout of information beyond (maybe?) the number of cloaked ships within the sphere.
While the window is open, it will sound an audible ping in ten second intervals that is heard at the same volume by both the hunter and the hunted. The ping would be inaudible at distances greater than 100km between the two.
The volume of the ping is the sum of three numbers. Number A is the f.o.v. degree of the hunter. Number B is the distance between the hunter and the ship. Number C is the profile of the cloaked ship: ship hull, cloak type, velocity.

To paraphrase Feyd:
I imagine players clutching their headsets and making careful adjustments to their scanners while a multibillion isk blops pilot sweats bullets trying to carefully drift out of scan range. It would give us something to do while waiting out the jump fatigue timer.

I took a few liberties, but here's hos idea in full.
Feyd's thing http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca/2015/10/next-level-blops.html
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#3364 - 2015-10-04 12:22:21 UTC
Not like the idea of adding more modules/ structures just to scan afk cloakers, we got tools in-game that could already work.

Make the cloaked ship leave a tiny signature for the combat probes to pick up- so small only a specialized ship with scanning med slots/ implants can scan it down.
Yurt Mobile Depo-ish sensor strength?

The ship could get increasingly easier to scan over time, the longer probes are on it, the easier to scan. This way a guy who cloaked for couple min for a bio would be safe, while an alt that just camps the system afk for whole day would die.

+1 for the "cloaky" combat probe idea, easy to carry, cheap, easy to implement. Cloaked ships should still be really hard to scan, we don't want a small gang hiding from a blob get blapped in 5 seconds after cloaking in a safe, do we?

Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Woozlez
Hundred Acre Mine Co.
#3365 - 2015-10-04 22:35:37 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.


Other than a minor reduction in the amount of cargo space, how is this a nerf? They can still do everything they did before.

If it makes you feel better, increase the cargo space on cloaky camper ships by 5%


You have never been on a long deployment then apparently. I've had a cloaky in space for days on end. When I would get done doing what needed to be done, I'd log in space.


And you've been cloaked for days on end?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3366 - 2015-10-05 01:05:49 UTC
Honestly fuel is not a good idea.

If you make them capable of carrying enough to be useful, you change very little about the situation. Anything over about 15 minutes is too long to be required to wait before being allowed to play, and yet not nearly enough time to do any of the things you could want to do with a cloak other than just camp under it.

What is needed is an active way to disrupt the cloak so that people aren't just sitting around or else flying suicidal.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3367 - 2015-10-05 01:33:31 UTC
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Woozlez wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


It is also a nerf to cloaking ships where the player is ACTIVE.

When you nerf active players to get at the in-acitve ones you have a horrible idea.


Other than a minor reduction in the amount of cargo space, how is this a nerf? They can still do everything they did before.

If it makes you feel better, increase the cargo space on cloaky camper ships by 5%


You have never been on a long deployment then apparently. I've had a cloaky in space for days on end. When I would get done doing what needed to be done, I'd log in space.


And you've been cloaked for days on end?


In they end...a very long time depending on what I was tasked with.

And I agree with Mike. Expanding the cargo hold so that there is enough fuel doesn't change much. Of course you could make it necessary to reload the fuel, but then there we go again we are imposing an additional nerf/cost on the active player to try and get at the inactive player. An active approach is preferred, IMO.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3368 - 2015-10-05 15:36:25 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Great job ignoring any playstyle but your own. PvE pilots in general, and I in specific, do not care about making kills when we are doing PvE. Putting a point on my ship will not cripple my fit, but neither does it do anything at all to make my ship more capable of surviving a PvP encounter. I know this is hard to understand... but I don't care if the other guy runs so long as I survive and can continue doing what I want to do. That's the beauty of the S A N D B O X, you can play how you want to play.

My chosen solution is to simply keep aggressors out of the space where I wish to PvE, allowing a more profitable fitting on PvE ships and actually making as much or more than when doing the equivalent activities in the much safer High Sec. In a balanced system you should be free to attempt to break that security, but I should be free to attempt to create it. Your PvP content is thus created with defense fleets, not against the PvE ships directly unless there really is no one guarding that space, or you actually win through with superior tactics instead of garbage mechanics. With cloaks as they are, it's impossible to even attempt because it's impossible to secure and hold space under the mechanics involving cloaking. It makes most of what is supposed to be the appeal of Null Sec completely pointless. If you can't secure and control it, it's not yours.

I fully respect the right of people who wish to hunt me to do so. I simply ask for the right to a level playing field rather than having to abandon my own preference entirely based on you decided I should not be able to and mechanics that allow you to enforce that with zero effort or risk, indefinitely. If I wanted to hunt people, I would be doing that already. I don't mind needing to hunt people as a precursor to doing what I like better-- however, mechanics that let you simply decide that you automatically cut all profits by around 50% (in general well below high sec levels) in a way that is completely unable to be challenged is not balanced by any reasonable standard.


You are continually ignoring the fact that pure PvE doesn't exist. This isn't WoW in space. You don't have a choice to pick a non-PvP server.

For the 1023rd time, no one cloaked can kill you or make ISK, and as such are not a threat.

And for the 1024th time, you don't want to be able to hunt people, as you have exactly zero kills to date. show me a KM where you have shot at least one person hunting you and I will start to treat you as more than a whining child.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3369 - 2015-10-05 17:11:06 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Great job ignoring any playstyle but your own. PvE pilots in general, and I in specific, do not care about making kills when we are doing PvE. Putting a point on my ship will not cripple my fit, but neither does it do anything at all to make my ship more capable of surviving a PvP encounter. I know this is hard to understand... but I don't care if the other guy runs so long as I survive and can continue doing what I want to do. That's the beauty of the S A N D B O X, you can play how you want to play.

My chosen solution is to simply keep aggressors out of the space where I wish to PvE, allowing a more profitable fitting on PvE ships and actually making as much or more than when doing the equivalent activities in the much safer High Sec. In a balanced system you should be free to attempt to break that security, but I should be free to attempt to create it. Your PvP content is thus created with defense fleets, not against the PvE ships directly unless there really is no one guarding that space, or you actually win through with superior tactics instead of garbage mechanics. With cloaks as they are, it's impossible to even attempt because it's impossible to secure and hold space under the mechanics involving cloaking. It makes most of what is supposed to be the appeal of Null Sec completely pointless. If you can't secure and control it, it's not yours.

I fully respect the right of people who wish to hunt me to do so. I simply ask for the right to a level playing field rather than having to abandon my own preference entirely based on you decided I should not be able to and mechanics that allow you to enforce that with zero effort or risk, indefinitely. If I wanted to hunt people, I would be doing that already. I don't mind needing to hunt people as a precursor to doing what I like better-- however, mechanics that let you simply decide that you automatically cut all profits by around 50% (in general well below high sec levels) in a way that is completely unable to be challenged is not balanced by any reasonable standard.


You are continually ignoring the fact that pure PvE doesn't exist. This isn't WoW in space. You don't have a choice to pick a non-PvP server.

For the 1023rd time, no one cloaked can kill you or make ISK, and as such are not a threat.

And for the 1024th time, you don't want to be able to hunt people, as you have exactly zero kills to date. show me a KM where you have shot at least one person hunting you and I will start to treat you as more than a whining child.


Sooo... You got nothing intelligible, pertinent or useful to add to the conversation then? Just attacks on my character based on your invented standards. If strawmen, foot stomping and double standards is the best you can do, then I am probably not the child here.

I didn't say there was any pure PvE, anymore than purely PvP. PvE drives PvP, or is supposed to. It doesn't for you but that's your business. Good thing you don't get to decide how anyone but you gets to play the game, or there would not be a game.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3370 - 2015-10-05 17:42:07 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sooo... You got nothing intelligible, pertinent or useful to add to the conversation then? Just attacks on my character based on your invented standards. If strawmen, foot stomping and double standards is the best you can do, then I am probably not the child here.

I didn't say there was any pure PvE, anymore than purely PvP. PvE drives PvP, or is supposed to. It doesn't for you but that's your business. Good thing you don't get to decide how anyone but you gets to play the game, or there would not be a game.


I gave you reasonable suggestions. I even proposed a compromise. You flat out ignored it. Why should I not make fun of someone who wants a buff to their own playstyle, but refuses to give anything up in return?

Good luck Mike "I won't accept a nerf to my playstyle in exchange for a nerf to someone else's playstyle" Voidstar.

Yet again, show me you are willing to hunt someone who hunts PvE-ers and I will begin to take you seriously.
Crimsons Storm
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3371 - 2015-10-05 22:52:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimsons Storm
I'm the first to admit that cloaking is kinda "ghey"

BUT

Altering the mechanics of covert ops cloaks on force recons and covert ops frigates "devalues" the very role these ships where designed for.

Advocates for some sort of "detection mechanic" have cited (on numerous occasions throughout this thread) that nothing in eve should be safe...covert ops frigates are not "entirely" safe, they're built like wet paper bags and I have myself killed several in null sec / low sec and have myself fell victim to savvy sabre pilots.

Secondly, if it's such a big problem and "nothing in eve should be safe", why is it then that "AFK" cloakers are an issue for you ?? ...is it because you don't feel safe with them in local ??

I'd like to point out that my opinions on this subject differ for retards who fit "non covert ops cloaks" to more traditional non-covert ops combat ships, and I would personally advocate for some kind of "detection mechanic" for anything meeting this criteria.

To those complaining about AFK cloakers (covert ops) I say this: Sack up sunshine, eve is not meant to be safe (your own words)

and as for non covert ops AFK cloaking, yes you have some valid points.

As a whole I think this entire subject is stupid and there are many other more important aspects of eve that need attention.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3372 - 2015-10-06 03:52:19 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Sooo... You got nothing intelligible, pertinent or useful to add to the conversation then? Just attacks on my character based on your invented standards. If strawmen, foot stomping and double standards is the best you can do, then I am probably not the child here.

I didn't say there was any pure PvE, anymore than purely PvP. PvE drives PvP, or is supposed to. It doesn't for you but that's your business. Good thing you don't get to decide how anyone but you gets to play the game, or there would not be a game.


I gave you reasonable suggestions. I even proposed a compromise. You flat out ignored it. Why should I not make fun of someone who wants a buff to their own playstyle, but refuses to give anything up in return?

Good luck Mike "I won't accept a nerf to my playstyle in exchange for a nerf to someone else's playstyle" Voidstar.

Yet again, show me you are willing to hunt someone who hunts PvE-ers and I will begin to take you seriously.



You have only given unreasoning trolls, not actual reasonable suggestions or compromise.

The first thing to realize is that the current mechanics are not balanced. This isn't a case where an even trade or adjustment is warranted. This is a case where the game is actually already borked entirely in your favor and you are clinging so hard to that broken mechanic because even the slightest amount of danger to your own ship is wholly unreasonable to you.

So feel free to suggest a balanced idea, or just stick with the bald admission of your own double standard and victory through dev fiat. You don't actually have an argument, so that's the best you are going to get in any sort of reasoned discussion.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3373 - 2015-10-06 13:35:17 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

The first thing to realize is that the current mechanics are not balanced. This isn't a case where an even trade or adjustment is warranted. This is a case where the game is actually already borked entirely in your favor and you are clinging so hard to that broken mechanic because even the slightest amount of danger to your own ship is wholly unreasonable to you.

....

Ahhh, this is not going to work for establishing a consensus.

Step one, in order to influence change, one must address the existing structure using terms agreed upon by all sides.

That means you don't get to deem the current dynamic as 'not balanced', unless you intend to achieve nothing more than a rant here.
The devs consider the current situation balanced, and there is sufficient evidence to support this.
(That being, under typical circumstances, neither cloaked ship nor PvE craft are being successfully hunted)

Capability of making ISK is considered, in this context, to be a sov holder's responsibility to foster the environment for.
If you have cloaked ships causing your farmers to not work, you need to either make it safer for them, or get farmers willing to take more risks. The choice here is strictly the sov holder's, and theirs alone.

The guy in the cloaked ship doesn't get to make the decisions for them here, despite the power apparently ceded to this mysterious figure already.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3374 - 2015-10-06 14:00:53 UTC
Except that there are no counters. There is no way to make the area safer. There is not use it, or use it in unprofitable conditions. Use it or not is the decision of the sov holder, but the area being made unprofitable is entirely the decision of the aggressor, and there is no way to challenge his ability to do that.

That's what is unbalanced. You can bring aggression to me, but I cannot return it to you unless you decide to let me.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3375 - 2015-10-06 14:26:36 UTC
However, in that regard, yes. The Devs, or at least Fozzie, declared the current setup as balanced because it is an uncountable disruption to PvE activities. That was conceeded a while back, and I withdrew my objections at that time based on those criteria.

However, argument has continued to try and otherwise support the idea that one side harming the other from an unassailable condition is balanced. I cannot see anyway that can work.

PvE guy wants to PvE. He is uninterested in PvP, and being prevented from PvE activities is a flat out loss to him.
PvP guy wants to PvP. PvE guy evades in reaction to pvp presence- PvE looses, PvP guy at worst breaks even.
PvP guy begins camping under a cloak. PvE guy is continually negatively impacted, in essence suffering ongoing damages, so long as the camp remains in place. PvE guy has no options to prevent this, and is left with either unacceptable levels of profitability or simply not using the space at all.

This is in no way a loss to PvP guy. PvP guy could continue until he finds another PvP guy to take part in the activity he wishes. PvP guy has no right to expect to inflict maximum losses on his opponents any more than PvE guy has the right to expect maximum profitability at all times. PvP guy could engage reshipped PvE guys, or defense fleets, or keep searching for a PvE guy not using evasion as his primary defense, or one who has had his attention lapse- an entirely likely scenario unless you are hunting bots, which is already illegal and beyond the scope of the thread.

While PvE guy should not expect maximum profitability at all times, he should expect a reasonable path to achieving it. That is the imbalance. There is no path that can lead to a conflict he can win, with winning defined as clearing space for use. PvP guy can win in a number of ways, from catching a PvE guy who failed to fly right or got caught at an inopportune time, to the continual disruption of PvE activities. So long as PvP guy can do that from an unassailable position there is no logical, reasoned basis for calling the situation balanced.

The balance is by dev decree only, which has been my point since Teckos posted it. Rather than refuting that point with reason and logic the counters have been either against my character, or decreeing that it's balanced because PvP guy has rights to his playstyle that supercede the rights of all other playstyles.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3376 - 2015-10-06 14:52:32 UTC
I saw what you wrote, (in the post after this), below, and I have empathy for your view.

I DO believe you are avoiding seeing this from different perspectives.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Except that there are no counters. There is no way to make the area safer. There is not use it, or use it in unprofitable conditions. Use it or not is the decision of the sov holder, but the area being made unprofitable is entirely the decision of the aggressor, and there is no way to challenge his ability to do that.

That's what is unbalanced. You can bring aggression to me, but I cannot return it to you unless you decide to let me.

There are also no counters to the safety of the PvE pilot.

It is being pointed out that any vulnerability on the side of a cloaked player, must be met with equal vulnerability on the side of the PvE player.
Not simply the same character after reshipping PvP, but as they started in the PvE ship itself.

Pure PvP ships are simply not invited.
On the hostile side, roams and gate camps block them from entry, as it should be.
On the defender's side, the cloaking device allows the hostile to not be subject to bait and switch PvP, as it should be.

The ability to make ISK, is off the table towards both sides until this is resolved.
Do not discount the price paid, in that context, by the less obvious cloaked player.
It is too easy to make the assumption that they must have multiple accounts, and the cloaked pilot is somehow on a disposable one that can be easily missed for play otherwise.

That assumption works both ways, which effectively balances it as a consideration of ISK loss here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3377 - 2015-10-06 15:58:07 UTC
The PvE pilot is vulnerable, even when no one else is in system. He is in space and if you arrive on grid the combat will resolve in a foregone concluded fashion. Local isn't a guarantee of safety, he still must be flying correctly and react appropriately when you arrive.

Things happen. In order for that local pilot to be safe he must be at the keyboard, vigilant and ready to react at any and all times. Uncertainties exist on both ends. If you come by static gates you have discarded suprise for stability. The local defenses are dialed in to handle static and stable threats. How and where you hunt is on you, and you should not have any expectation of regular success if you choose to raise your own bar of difficulty to the point where you are overriding literally hundreds of manhours of active efforts in securing that space. Under those circumstances every kill should be an epic struggle with hundreds or thousands of failures, because that's the task you have insisted on.

Again.... It seems most of the PvP gripe is actually about bots who have perfect evasion. Real pilots get tired, get distracted, get stuck, fail to align every time, get scrambled by rats, etc... You can catch those guys on a regular basis even without afk camping. Bots are a different matter, and one which has a different set of solutions.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3378 - 2015-10-06 20:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You have only given unreasoning trolls, not actual reasonable suggestions or compromise.

The first thing to realize is that the current mechanics are not balanced. This isn't a case where an even trade or adjustment is warranted. This is a case where the game is actually already borked entirely in your favor and you are clinging so hard to that broken mechanic because even the slightest amount of danger to your own ship is wholly unreasonable to you.

So feel free to suggest a balanced idea, or just stick with the bald admission of your own double standard and victory through dev fiat. You don't actually have an argument, so that's the best you are going to get in any sort of reasoned discussion.


The game is absolutely balanced. You have multiple ways of avoiding the cloaked guy (local, refitting to stabs with a depot). The cloaked guy can't harm you in any way when cloaked.

Look at my KB Mike. I am hardly this l33t PvP-er who refuses to fight anyone he can't beat.

You've yet to explain how proposing a nerf to your stupidly overpowered mechanic (local) in conjunction with a nerf to cloaking is bad. Other than "something something I want to PvE in 100% safety"

And again, given you have never risked attacking anyone ever, I'm not the one in this conversation whose afraid of being in danger. Hell, I was evicted from a WH last month and lost a big chunk of what I had out there. You don't have a leg to stand on claiming I'm afraid of losing ISK.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
The PvE pilot is vulnerable, even when no one else is in system. He is in space and if you arrive on grid the combat will resolve in a foregone concluded fashion. Local isn't a guarantee of safety, he still must be flying correctly and react appropriately when you arrive.


You're just bad at PvE if you think this is true. Local is a 100% guarantee of safety if you are watching it. If you aren't looking up corps/KBs of people in local with you as you are PvE-ing, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3379 - 2015-10-06 23:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Local is a tool you can use to help keep you safe.

If you are not distracted.
If you are not scrambled by rats.
If you are flying properly aligned.
Etc...

Local does not protect you. You protect yourself.

A cloak does protect you, perfectly, indefinitely.

Also, how do you use local to avoid the cloaked guy? It does nothing to him. All you can do is leave the system. Stabs? I guess I could risk that he does not have faction points, or a heavy interdictor, or a second point... Or, since he is coming either way I should just get safe. Neither thing allows you to do anything about the cloaked guy. It just allows you to fly suicidal, unprofitable, or crippled. Stupid is as stupid does, as your logic clearly shows.

You clearly simply do not comprehend what balance means. The cloaked guy is harming PvE activity by being there projecting threat. If you deny that as truth, then you should have no problem with a 15 minute log out timer. Since you aren't interacting with the game anyway, it should not matter, and the 'risk' of being uncloaked for less than 30 seconds when you log in at a random time is purely a non-factor. Certainly less than the risk of a cloaked ship hunting you somewhere in system.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#3380 - 2015-10-07 15:49:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Local is a tool you can use to help keep you safe.

If you are not distracted.
If you are not scrambled by rats.
If you are flying properly aligned.
Etc...

Local does not protect you. You protect yourself.

A cloak does protect you, perfectly, indefinitely.

Also, how do you use local to avoid the cloaked guy? It does nothing to him. All you can do is leave the system. Stabs? I guess I could risk that he does not have faction points, or a heavy interdictor, or a second point... Or, since he is coming either way I should just get safe. Neither thing allows you to do anything about the cloaked guy. It just allows you to fly suicidal, unprofitable, or crippled. Stupid is as stupid does, as your logic clearly shows.

You clearly simply do not comprehend what balance means. The cloaked guy is harming PvE activity by being there projecting threat. If you deny that as truth, then you should have no problem with a 15 minute log out timer. Since you aren't interacting with the game anyway, it should not matter, and the 'risk' of being uncloaked for less than 30 seconds when you log in at a random time is purely a non-factor. Certainly less than the risk of a cloaked ship hunting you somewhere in system.


You can't harm anyone when cloaked.

If you are distracted, don't have a depot with stabs to become un-scrammed, and are not properly aligned you deserve to lose your ship.

I understand balance. I am the one proposing a nerf to both playstyles. You're the one asking for a buff to what you do when counters already exist.

A second point? Is this your first time playing? Drop a depot at every site, orbit it and refit to a full low slot of stabs if pointed. You will escape 100% of the time. Understanding the current game mechanics and all that?