Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How is it possible for people to be so obtuse about justify there silly belief that nullspace rattings only counter is a broken mechanic. Talk about broken logic.

If you believe that sitting in space cloaked indefinitely is a valid and logical mechanic then I hope CCP makes cloaking permanent. You shouldn't be able to turn off the cloak, problem solved!

Not claiming it is the only counter, but I distinctly remember stating some facts earlier on, such as:

- cannot target after decloak for 5 seconds.
- cannot cyno on grid with acceleration gates or inside plexes.
- cannot "warp to" inside plexes either.
- can drop a can inside plexes to decloak potential hunters.
- cannot catch up with targets while cloaked (no propmod)
- targets can instantly warp off when they're aligned.
- rats switch aggro to the hunter, even though the hunter didn't mean them no harm.
- need to scan down plexes before entering them.
- locals can pick up these probes or incoming roaming gangs on DScan too.
- many many many anomalies, can you guess the correct one?
- locals get a free advance warning while "intruders" are still loading grid.
- one on one, PvE ships are much stronger than covops ships.

And yet the nullspace ratters claim their only choice is to dock up or die? This is outrageous. Fear mongering at its finest. We try to explain there is really no need to be so afraid, and then other factors are dragged into the discussion. ISK/hr, which is patently false. The need for a whole Fleet to defend against One guy -- also patently false, for it stands to reason that when the offender brings more guys, you need to bring more guys as well to keep the comparison somewhat fair. Plus, ratting with more guys does not cut into ISK/hr so those arguments fell flat too.

Next up, came the "big psychological effect" and idealism along the lines of "you shouldn't be undocked and safe" ..... trying to turn the tables 180 degrees, yet the idea that a cloaked ship is only safe when sitting still in the middle off buttfk nebraska, and no safer than an uncloaked one when on the move, was easily discarded.

I declare ratting is already far too safe, to the point where even an AFK cloaker can only net kills against AFK ratters. If the ratter is paying any attention at all, you won't even catch him.

But, apparently, I am mistaken. Please do elaborate on how You do it then? (and no, I'm not talking about Providence).




Actually, I do believe that it is. It is not perfect, we're trying to improve upon it but so far, it is very balanced indeed. People are complaining the "hunter is AFK". People are complaining he's in their system. So what? Maybe people need to mind their own business. It's not up to anyone else to decide how a character - paid for - wants to spend his time now, is it? I can sit in a POS. I can sit in a station. I can sit in a safespot cloaked. I can sit at my keyboard or I can sip a beer nextdoor -- how does that help any argument you will undoubtedly share with us??

And then of course there are those who think it's okay in a structure but not okay out in open space because of :reasons:. What those reasons may be is yet unspecified; but somehow a name in local annoys them more than when said name's location is accounted for.

It is, quite literally, incapable of doing anything except DScanning, warping places and probing. And these are exactly the things a recon is supposed to be doing. So ... do I think that sitting in space cloaked is a valid and logical mechanic for a covert ops recon? Duh! It says so on the box. I expect frigates to be fast. I expect HACs to put out DPS. And I expect recons to run reconnaissance. This not logical to you?


Here's a question for you: are you here to try and come up with a less lame mechanic that puts EVERYONE involved more at risk? Or are you just venting frustration? Because believe me, I really tried to divert discussion away from PvE and I failed miserably. It really is all about PvE crowd too afraid to undock. Still thinking they're at a disadvantage and calling for more nerfs. Think I'm lying? Nobody gives a hoot what gets broken in the process; they want one thing and one thing only: clear every single last neutral out of "their" system to print free ISK. THAT is the message resounding loud and clear throughout these pages. You have anything to add that hasn't been addressed before? Go right ahead. But don't just throw your 4 lines of text in here saying "yea the cloak is broken. Your logic is broken too."

How is it broken? What is broken, in your opinion... is it the module? Is it the cyno? Is it the duration? Is it their ability to gather intel? Do you demand proof they're at their keyboard? Why? Out of spite? And how would you perhaps "fix" it then? Remove the module from the game? What else would you break in the process? Dude ...... you might want to think about these things before you start posting. Might want to read what people have already argued before resetting to page 1....?

I'll play: if they're "broken" why do only null bears cry?

Still no answers to that one, you see for something to be overpowered it rather has to be overpowered in all areas of space.

Morrigan
Perhaps work a bit on your reading comprehension skills?

Lets try it a different way.

"This is CCP customer services. Your opinion is of great importance to us. Please hold until our representative can answer your call. There are two afk cloaky campers ahead of you in line"

What do you do?

Hold or hang up?

There are tons of workarounds to afk cloaky camping. You can find them in high sec and wormhole space.

*Player control of gate access
*PvE response to hostile action
*No cynos
*Scan sites only
*Omni damage rats

So, yah, you could import those to null-sec. Or you could just fix the broken mechanism directly. What cannot be done is masking the broken mechanism by superimposing a far worse mechanism on top of it (aka evelore based local removal in nullsec).

Multiple account holding afk cloaky campers are the ones with disgusting entitlement issues. All anyone wants if for afk camping to be nominally unsafe, perhaps in a way that makes perverse isk/hr revenue from PI and moon goo transport nominally unsafe too.

Excuse me for a bit while I spend some time trying to catch ATK campers. You know, the kind of pilots that add content instead of removing it.

Afk cloaky camping is just such a disgusting phenomenon.

I dislike typos and the one I made, "nullsuc", might have been interpreted as a slight.

And I see you're still just throwing poorly veiled insults around instead of actually being able to answer the challenge. No surprises there.

And still you cannot tell me why lowsec doesn't have this issue. Funny that.

Who the hell belt rats in null?

My god there's no point talking to you, it's like a bad thesaurus bot which has malfunctioned badly.

I would agree that decloaking, tackling and lighting a covert cyno faster than most PvE ships can even lock their aggressor in return doesn't feel right. I wouldn't remove module activation altogether, however; but perhaps we could do with a delay on cyno activation on decloak... ?

Any solution that encourages people to undock and try to fight off the threat when it suddenly decloaks has my blessing.

Although I predict the next nerf called for will be "this Pilgrim decloaked me by bumping me out of alignment, and I died -- NERF BUMPING!!!" There is a limit to how much carebear protection I can stomach; even in highsec Concord does not Protect but Punish.

Okay, first things first, it is not hugely disrespectful of customer time as the idea of disrupting other players game play is the point of the game. Ganking ships, invasions, taking moons, roaming, etc.

As for this notion of a single player disrupting the play of group of players that is utter Bravo Sierra. I have shown how just 3 players ( or 3 pilots with 1 player, or 3 pilots with 2 players) can rat away with little fear from even the most powerful of the current cloaking ships. They will be able to burn down anomaly after anomaly. If they choose to dock up that is their choice and their problem. Nobody elses.

Further, even a single solo player, with some effort can determine the "AFKness". I have actually shown how one could do it formally. One could do it informally as well. Look at their last 100 kills (hint, you can copy zkillboard entries into Excel via copy and paste) and see how many are in your TZ. If there are zero that is a good indicator he is not active in your TZ.

This complaint is, when boiled down to its core, is nothing more than a huge whine by an entitled player who has trotted out every stupid cliche this and other AFK cloaking threads have trotted out. Further, he has done so by lying.



Yep. And every pilot in that system is safe from him. Some indisputable facts:

1. No AFK player has ever killed another (oh, wait, yes it did happen an AFK ratter in a carrier did wipe out a cloaky bomber gang...kinda goes against the narrative though, lol).
2. No cloaked ship has never killed another ship.



You lying sack. You have been badgering me, jumping up and down like a pathetic attention whore for the past several pages specifically about me wanting compenstation then you write that. Entitlement much liar?



Actually, these all make ratting safer. You are whining and putting on one Hell of a demonstration for entitlement. Me, me, me. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Ratting in its current form is acceptable, if anything it needs a change and one that could indeed make AFK cloaking even move problematic. If NS switched from anomalies to missions it would have several salutory effects. One of which would be many players in one system. The more people in a system out doing Stuff™ the harder it would be for a cloaker to kill a ratter without drawing an over-whelming response. We don't need to shut down gates (just stupid beyone belief in NS), we don't need to hide anomalies...especially after CCP has actually gone and made them easier to find. Having missions, depending on how it is done could, in effect, lead to players approximatting an omni tank, or more accurately the ratters tank would not be nearly as predictable. Also, NS sov space might see additional concentration opening up more space for more players in NS--i.e. further breaking up whatever is left of the "Blue Donut". And lastely having missions and LP would change the growth of the money supply. Currently rat bounties, the bulk of which come from NS, are an enormous part of the ISK flowing into the in game economy.



Another lie. Nobody has suggested that local simply be removed and that's that. A casual read of the OA thread shows that there are two groups regarding the OA, the first is the PvE group that says, "NO!!!! YOU CAN'T REMOVE LOCAL!!!" The second group is, remove it, but allow people to get it back via the OA. One commenter, not a member of the PvE side, actually used words almost identical to those used by Mike. "Players who have taken sov space should have ways to secure that space." What he was referring to was using the OA to find AFK cloakers.

Rendering afk cloaky camping nominally vulnerable does not require and should not be given compensation.

I am not against change in general, but changes cannot be coupled to compensating EvE financed, multiple account holders for the tremendous burden of being ATK while undocked and in hostile space if they wish to remain safe.

The solution rests in the balance. A time consuming way of scanning down cloaked ships that gives the cloaked pilot sufficient time to take action to remain safe. Even sufficient time to do other multi-boxing stuff.

Nothing is wrong with multi boxing. Nothing is wrong with camping. Nothing is wrong with cloaky camping.

The afk contribution to the equation is the issue.