Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ah, then the old standby of not using the space, flying suicidal, or else countermeasures that make it more profitable to just play in highsec. Gotcha.

Totally legit, no problems with those options at all.

Incorrect.

Your cloaked presence in the system requires a response. That response is currently limited to roughly 3 options: ignore you and fly suicidal, simply don't use the space at all by moving or not playing, or fly with escorts and/or compromised fits which still won't survive a serious attack and result in profits dropping below acceptable levels as defined by mid-high end equivalent to high-sec space.

What I cannot do in any way is challenge you for The right to use that space as I see fit. You have 100% of the initiative, determining when or if a confrontation takes place, yet in every real sense threatening an immenent attack at all times. You are having a real affect on the space you are camping, with no counter, no danger to yourself, and purely to the detriment of others that would use that space differently than you. That is fine if you are active and having to maintain that advantage with effort of your own, but demanding 23/7 constant dilligence from your opponent without even being at the keyboard yourself is not balanced.

Move that burden of effort so it's shared by both sides by allowing a system where cloaks can be hunted by a ship equivalent to a cov-ops through the elimination of false positives so that cloaks cannot remain endlessly safe yet are not rendered useless for other uses. It's not a case of asking for things to be tilted one way or the other, it's just asking for the opportunity to oppose an attack by having active effort trump passive effort.

Ok.. you are now in clear troll territory.

It's been explained multiple times that max profitability is not equal to acceptable profitability, with acceptable defined as mid-high end highsec levels. If you can make more in high sec, with less risk and effort, then there's no point in doing it in null if your goal is pve.

If you want to bait for pvp that's fine... but that's not driving conflict with pve.

The largest entities are capable of keeping large standing defense fleets, which is what AFK cloakers are supposedly targeting... yet are also the exact thing they won't engage. Instead they impact only the smaller independent operators nearly exclusively, because that's safe and easy.

So why can't you make kills without resorting to cheesy blueball tactics that leave 100% of every advantage in your court from behind an uncounterable cloak? What's the excuse to leave such a broken thing as is?

Right, because it only hurts pve players, and F*ck those guys.

Allow me to pitch in for a second here.

Yes Mike, I see the point -- you've made it over a hundred pages ago already.
I shall try to explain why the cloaky crowd is so upset with getting rid of these camps -- for there is indeed one slight problem; namely: unless the player running sites is really AFK or goofs up big time, there is literally NO snowballs chance in hell to get to him.

This is why cloaky camps exist, and this is why one needs to not only address the cloak itself (which I'm all for).

We've all seen them: out of the way systems, couple of rattlesnakes on DScan, no scout or eyes whatsoever. And then, when your interceptor (we really can't do better than that, can we?) enters the system, they all warp to a POS.

I wouldn't mind this bunch of PvE to stand a reasonable chance of getting away if they'd at least bother to have eyes somewhere, or we'd run into a gatecamp along the way. But you know what? They don't even need to. They are cocky enough to just sit there in their bling bling ratters, not a care in the world. Because they can get away with it and they know it.

So what does the avid PvPer do? He cloaky camps that system till the ratters get comfortable, cyno goes up, and we catch maybe one or two of them.

If we did not have the latter option, then how can we disrupt PvE from happening?? I'm not talking about protected systems -- I totally get that a secured system is supposed to be a lucrative deal. Yet as it stands, you don't even need to protect your system, and that's taking it a bit too far imho.

Addressing the cloak is a good thing, because it's lame. Even I feel lame when we drop on someone. The pilot doesn't really stand a chance once he's tackled, unless *maybe* he's got a counter-drop up his sleeve. Which rarely happens. But if not through a cloaky camp, then how exactly would we be able to catch ratters in unprotected systems?? Y'all like to talk about intel channels and secure space, although from where I'm standing the only protection you need is "to stay aligned".

Which is why, after much consideration and debate, delaying local has been the best suggestion to date. Not that I'm overly fond of that one either, but you have to understand both sides of the coin. You don't like the cloaky ship's absolute safety -- and neither do I. (not to mention whose idea was it to make cloaky AND nullified T3s ?!?? ffs!) We don't like the ratter's safety either. Blueballing both is a loss-loss situation, taking away from one side's invulnerability is a clear win for one side. More structures doesn't solve anything, although getting a killmail for an anchorable thingie for our trouble would be "something" I guess. But no thanks.

What we really want, is another way to go about it entirely. Like maybe ..... remove the "bubble immunity" role bonus from interceptors and replace it with a "doesn't show up in local" bonus?

Either way- you're going around in circles over and over again without grasping the problem at hand. It'd be fine to counter cloakers if there were any other way to catch ratting blobs in unsecured space. But there is none.

Here's another idea: how about a T2 bubble that can effective drag people out of warp *even after warp has been initiated* ? It would require hunters to know / guess which POS you're warping to, and it would require real skill on the pilot to overtake you in warp and pop the bubble in time. It'd be by no means a guaranteed kill.

Unless we come up with something that satisfies both parties, this thread is doomed to fail.

More 2 cents from yours truly,

Which is why after many months of debate I settled on the compromise of cloaks being huntable by a ship equivalent to a Cov-ops, with a system that produces false positives that must be eliminated. That allows for proactive hunting of the cloaks, cloaks to retain their safety with proactive action, and PvE to continue or not based on the risk evaluation of the locals considering the ability and willingness to secure their space in an active fashion without everyone just sitting around staring at eachother and victory being handed without effort to the cloaky due to lack of options.

You don't have a question that needs an answer beyond simply "sandbox"

If you want to contest my use of the space then by all means do so. Come shoot me. If I dock or leave as soon as you arrive, mission accomplished even easirr. What more could you ask for?

What gives you the right to killmails at my expense? What gives you the right to force a defense response from me 23/7 from unbreakable safety?

Why is your playstyle more valid, even if I am doing it in space dozens of jumps from where you operate?

If you want to affect my gameplay you are welcome to try. However you should not have the power to do so from unbreakable safety, indefinitely, 23/7, regardless of being AFK or not. You want me at risk from you, then you be at risk from me. Not just when, where, how and if you decide, but under the same circumstances you want to place me under- anytime at all while undocked.



You mean to say there are in fact other dangers to operating that way, and an AFK cloaked isn't the only possible risk? Do tell...

They still don't have any more right than I do to be 100% safe in space. Who cares why someone wants to hunt them? Point is it should be possible.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are just afraid your "i win" button will become more challenging to use.

Well argued sir. Really well argued.

Greetings

Not sure if already said, an Alliance mate said how about a timer, so you have to click on it to stay cloaked?

Also having a means to scan to cloaky ship would be amazing, but should not make it easy/reliable to catch someone who is not afk.

Also someone who is not near a pos / station should be harder to find, kinda like a sub that is pretending to the sea bed, is not moving and powered down.

It would be good to scan down cloakies or have an idea of where they are, but also a bad idea to remove the fun of being cloaked.

Bit mixed up post, summary a change would be good but not ruin cloaky fun, making it more fun for both sides would be welcomed, having some challenge in hiding be added bonus, like avoiding warp routes, ie between gates.

Nope, all of that was accounted for in the previous discussion. Go educate yourself and come back with an actual balanced suggestion that does not involve eternal blueballs or else you just automatically winning.