These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5421 - 2016-01-14 17:51:29 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I argued long and hard to balance the safety rather than the utility. You can't have it both ways
Is this irony Mike?

The safety already goes both ways. Two way street.

Plus you have a habit of using an argument when it suits and dismissing it when it doesn't. That is having it both ways.

Xcom wrote:

Mike its pointless arguing with them. All they do is to take out sentences out of a post, attack you directly, call out names, tell you that your wrong and repeat the same dragged out argument over and over in a repetitive manner. They aren't here to try and improve the game for the sake of game balance or anything.

I haven't seen any constructive or creative idea come out of any of them, nothing but attacks against any idea or suggestion in this thread. Its forum warrioring at its core and its obvious, I suggest to not feed them anymore cause your just literally entertaining there sick pleasure they get out of hacking down ideas in this thread.
Another ironic post.

I haven't attacked you directly or called you names. I have pointed out you're in the wrong thread, as this is not about simply nerfing cloaks. Something you've admitted to wanting.

I suggest you actually read more of what people post, before berating them. Why should we ignore poorly thought out ideas and bad approaches to balance?


I see none of the nerf clock group have answered the question yet, it is the elephant in the room tbh.

What mechanic are they using to interact with you, whilst they are AFK?


It's not irony, and it's not a two way street.

The cloaked ship has the ability to perform functions that an enemy would consider objectionable and would want/need to interfere with them. You are not safe from being spied upon, yet they are utterly safe from you. You aren't safe from being threatened, yet they can credibly threaten you.

That's completely one sided. Either reduce the safety to a non-absolute level that demands a similar amount of effort to stay safe as is put into countering them (fleets, constant vigil, etc) or else reduce their range of activity to match their safety.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5422 - 2016-01-14 18:20:48 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Mike its pointless arguing with them. All they do is to take out sentences out of a post, attack you directly, call out names, tell you that your wrong and repeat the same dragged out argument over and over in a repetitive manner. They aren't here to try and improve the game for the sake of game balance or anything.


Funny.

I can the exact same thing about you, and ESPECIALLY about Mike.

Neither of you care a whit about game balance, you just want something nerfed because you personally dislike it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5423 - 2016-01-14 18:25:13 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

The cloaked ship has the ability to perform functions that an enemy would consider objectionable and would want/need to interfere with them.


Wrong again, liar.

Everyone can use d-scan, and the ways around d-scan are the same for everybody. There isn't some magical game breaking exception here, like you're attempting to claim.


Quote:

Either reduce the safety to a non-absolute level that demands a similar amount of effort to stay safe as is put into countering them (fleets, constant vigil, etc) or else reduce their range of activity to match their safety.


Neither. It's perfectly balanced right now, that's why you hate it so much, because you despise game balance with every fiber of your being.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5424 - 2016-01-14 19:18:48 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Oh and if the pilot isn't at the computer, they can't do any of the stuff you just said, so are you against afk-cloaking or cloaks in general, because you are mixing things up here



Well, if you have been paying attention for the last several months, and nigh unto 300 pages, you would know that I don't consider AFK to be the problem. It's a symptom.

The problem is the available activity of the ship from the absolute safety of the cloak, which allows the pilot to remain a credible threat even AFK. Since he cannot be located even if he was on grid, much less at a secret safe, and he retains full mobility, the ability to acquire and relay detailed intel, and the ability to launch non-targeting attacks immediately upon decloaking he must be treated as an active threat at all times.

Since the safety is inviolate, we should then look to balance by removing the potential danger and objectionable actions of ships employing a cloak.

If an enemy is gathing detailed intel on you, you should be able to confront them. If they are moving to attack you should have opportunity to respond. If they compromise the security of space you wish to claim by carrying a cyno, you should be able to secure space if you are willing to put in the effort to do so.

You want to be able to do stuff(tm), then you need to be vulnerable to others doing stuff(tm) to you. You can do stuff(tm) under a cloak, and thus you should either be huntable, or the stuff(tm) you can do should be limited to actions available while docked.


You really should stop using the term absolute safety. You use it with out any qualifiers and that immediately invalidates your entire argument.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5425 - 2016-01-14 19:28:25 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Go ask Nalia White, she seems to kill a metric shitload of cloaked ships.

Also your caveat is invalid: How do you hunt it when not in X,Y or Z circumstance.

Secure your borders, "problem" solved.


A quick perusal of here KB, yes I actually looked unlike those on the other side, and it looks like Nalia White is a good interceptor pilot in terms of decloaking.

If you aren't that good, or you still working on trying to be that good...use cans. Put cans of low end ammo out around any bubbles/gates.

"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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5426 - 2016-01-14 19:28:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Oh and if the pilot isn't at the computer, they can't do any of the stuff you just said, so are you against afk-cloaking or cloaks in general, because you are mixing things up here



Well, if you have been paying attention for the last several months, and nigh unto 300 pages, you would know that I don't consider AFK to be the problem. It's a symptom.

The problem is the available activity of the ship from the absolute safety of the cloak, which allows the pilot to remain a credible threat even AFK. Since he cannot be located even if he was on grid, much less at a secret safe, and he retains full mobility, the ability to acquire and relay detailed intel, and the ability to launch non-targeting attacks immediately upon decloaking he must be treated as an active threat at all times.

Since the safety is inviolate, we should then look to balance by removing the potential danger and objectionable actions of ships employing a cloak.

If an enemy is gathing detailed intel on you, you should be able to confront them. If they are moving to attack you should have opportunity to respond. If they compromise the security of space you wish to claim by carrying a cyno, you should be able to secure space if you are willing to put in the effort to do so.

You want to be able to do stuff(tm), then you need to be vulnerable to others doing stuff(tm) to you. You can do stuff(tm) under a cloak, and thus you should either be huntable, or the stuff(tm) you can do should be limited to actions available while docked.


You really should stop using the term absolute safety. You use it with out any qualifiers and that immediately invalidates your entire argument.


Not like his argument is valid to begin with.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5427 - 2016-01-14 19:55:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

The cloaked ship has the ability to perform functions that an enemy would consider objectionable and would want/need to interfere with them.


Wrong again, liar.

Everyone can use d-scan, and the ways around d-scan are the same for everybody. There isn't some magical game breaking exception here, like you're attempting to claim.


Quote:

Either reduce the safety to a non-absolute level that demands a similar amount of effort to stay safe as is put into countering them (fleets, constant vigil, etc) or else reduce their range of activity to match their safety.


Neither. It's perfectly balanced right now, that's why you hate it so much, because you despise game balance with every fiber of your being.



In the interest of getting some conversation going (probably fruitless), but what the heck.

I can see how if you have a hostile in system you'd prefer reducing his ability to gather information. However, the notion of simply doing it by Dev fiat is once again antithetical to the core principles of the game. It should be done by player effort and should entail something being at risk. Also, make it come with trade offs. You can muck up the d-scan function on hostile ships...but you can no longer find that guy who is cloaked in system, even if he is parked at a safe spot for hours.

"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
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#5428 - 2016-01-14 19:58:57 UTC
Was thinking hard and factual about how to make a nice cat and mouse kind of minigame for both hunter and hunted. Best way to fix the cloaking problem is to give it a form of counter. It should fix the cloaking problem ones and for all but still make it less powerful to prevent the cloaking aspect of the game to retain its original intended use. Mostly to create a way to at least give the opposing side a fighting chance. To make it proper I'll present it from top to bottom with the ideas and my views of how it fits in with my side of balanced approach.

To start of there should be a proper ship that conducts such an attack, call it the anti-cloaker. Said ship should have the ability to launch charges similar to a stealth bomber. The charges should similar to smart bombs simply decloak any ship in its radius or explosion. Same ship should also be able to have the single intended ability to scan for cloaked ships and only cloaked ships. Should be week and fragile enough to as make it even possible for cov-ops ships to take them down easily and clearly not give them any offensive slots or cloaking ability. Basically a paper thin anti-cloaker that relies on support to operate.

The charge should fly similar to a bomb in a straight line roughly 70km and explode with a proper 50km radius. 70km - 50km should make it impossible to jump through a gate and de-cloak anyone on the other side of said gate instantly. You would need to pick an area of space to de-cloak. A well prepared pilot would still need to deploy the charge where he suspects a cloaked ship and if anyone with a cloak spots a charge would still be able to warp off to avoid being de-cloaked and if de-cloaked even have the chance to get out before anyone would lock and point. Similar to bombs the charges would need to be used sparingly, both as few would fit in the hold and the price of each.

Said ship would also be the sole ship to have the ability to probe down cloaked ships and only spot cloaked ships during probing. Even landing on grid would give you a very vague approximation of your targets location. Even after landing on grid you would need to use charges to weed out your target. To balance this you could land at a minimum of 70km to always give the cloaked pilot the ability to spot any ship on grid and warp of before getting de-cloaked.

This would make it nearly impossible to use said anti-cloaker in large scale combat as they would be easily poped. Even cloaked ships could try to snipe them out as they would cause interference. They would be used to spot any cloaked ships so they would be mostly used passively to counter cloakers that didn't pay much attention. Well prepared groups would be able to use the anti-cloakers in WH space to try avoid getting killed by cloaked enemy's but cloaked ships still be able to avoid them easily. They would mostly be a form of fighting chance to weed out the worst cloaked pilots that basically thought they would be totally safe behind there cloaks.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5429 - 2016-01-14 20:03:20 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Best way to fix the cloaking problem is to give it a form of counter.


No counter is needed for something that isn't a problem to begin with.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5430 - 2016-01-14 20:17:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Go ask Nalia White, she seems to kill a metric shitload of cloaked ships.

Also your caveat is invalid: How do you hunt it when not in X,Y or Z circumstance.

Secure your borders, "problem" solved.


A quick perusal of here KB, yes I actually looked unlike those on the other side, and it looks like Nalia White is a good interceptor pilot in terms of decloaking.

If you aren't that good, or you still working on trying to be that good...use cans. Put cans of low end ammo out around any bubbles/gates.



White is a machine, it's quite something to see and certainly buries the "decloaking is luck" argument.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5431 - 2016-01-14 20:26:05 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Go ask Nalia White, she seems to kill a metric shitload of cloaked ships.

Also your caveat is invalid: How do you hunt it when not in X,Y or Z circumstance.

Secure your borders, "problem" solved.


A quick perusal of here KB, yes I actually looked unlike those on the other side, and it looks like Nalia White is a good interceptor pilot in terms of decloaking.

If you aren't that good, or you still working on trying to be that good...use cans. Put cans of low end ammo out around any bubbles/gates.



White is a machine, it's quite something to see and certainly buries the "decloaking is luck" argument.

Luck, or pilot error.

If you are in a cov ops, and warping to zero, then you are doing it wrong.

Again... Humping a gate and waiting for whomever decides to use it isn't hunting someone.

You have a hostile in system, gathering info under a cloak. You need to get rid of them, and so you hunt them down to either kill them or drive them away.... Feel free to give even a general sense of how you proceed. If you can't, then they are not huntable.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5432 - 2016-01-14 20:30:44 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Go ask Nalia White, she seems to kill a metric shitload of cloaked ships.

Also your caveat is invalid: How do you hunt it when not in X,Y or Z circumstance.

Secure your borders, "problem" solved.


A quick perusal of here KB, yes I actually looked unlike those on the other side, and it looks like Nalia White is a good interceptor pilot in terms of decloaking.

If you aren't that good, or you still working on trying to be that good...use cans. Put cans of low end ammo out around any bubbles/gates.



White is a machine, it's quite something to see and certainly buries the "decloaking is luck" argument.

Luck, or pilot error.

If you are in a cov ops, and warping to zero, then you are doing it wrong.

Again... Humping a gate and waiting for whomever decides to use it isn't hunting someone.

You have a hostile in system, gathering info under a cloak. You need to get rid of them, and so you hunt them down to either kill them or drive them away.... Feel free to give even a general sense of how you proceed. If you can't, then they are not huntable.



And the cov ops knows she's on the other side? Do you have a scout for your scouts?

Your comment speaks volumes about your lack of experience in dangerous space.

Hint: She's not getting them warping to zero. My god how can you even think that is the case?

You're sat there telling people "they're doing it wrong" whilst very obviously having no idea how the game works in that area.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5433 - 2016-01-14 21:37:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Go ask Nalia White, she seems to kill a metric shitload of cloaked ships.

Also your caveat is invalid: How do you hunt it when not in X,Y or Z circumstance.

Secure your borders, "problem" solved.


A quick perusal of here KB, yes I actually looked unlike those on the other side, and it looks like Nalia White is a good interceptor pilot in terms of decloaking.

If you aren't that good, or you still working on trying to be that good...use cans. Put cans of low end ammo out around any bubbles/gates.



White is a machine, it's quite something to see and certainly buries the "decloaking is luck" argument.

Luck, or pilot error.

If you are in a cov ops, and warping to zero, then you are doing it wrong.

Again... Humping a gate and waiting for whomever decides to use it isn't hunting someone.


Works for me. They are dead and not in your system(s). Problem solved.

Quote:
You have a hostile in system, gathering info under a cloak. You need to get rid of them, and so you hunt them down to either kill them or drive them away.... Feel free to give even a general sense of how you proceed. If you can't, then they are not huntable.


Or you need to not give them the information. Or give them the wrong information. Or information they cannot use. Granted, it would be nice to change up the process, but simply solving the problem via Dev fiat should only be used in cases where you have no other options or something is well and truly broken (e.g. titans blapping interceptors).

"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
#5434 - 2016-01-14 22:55:57 UTC
How is this thread still going on? From CCP's Golden Rules

Quote:
Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


/thread
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5435 - 2016-01-14 23:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Not CCP Golden Rules

Quote:
Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


Point taken?

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5436 - 2016-01-15 06:17:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
How is this thread still going on? From CCP's Golden Rules

Quote:
Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


/thread


Be nice if everyone consented to PvP while undocked though.

However, I do take it for evidence that it's understood that cloaks be as safe as a station. Thus to achieve balance we need to remove any and all ship capability from ship under cloak other than navigation that is not available while in station. No ships or temporary objects on overview, no dscan, no probes, no activating of any modules of any kind while the targeting delay is still in effect.

Station safety, station restriction of activity.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#5437 - 2016-01-15 06:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Again... Humping a gate and waiting for whomever decides to use it isn't hunting someone.


Works for me. They are dead and not in your system(s). Problem solved.


It is certainly a way to kill *someone*. It's not hunting a particular someone though. It's taking targets of opportunity, some of whom have cloaks equipped.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You have a hostile in system, gathering info under a cloak. You need to get rid of them, and so you hunt them down to either kill them or drive them away.... Feel free to give even a general sense of how you proceed. If you can't, then they are not huntable.



Or you need to not give them the information. Or give them the wrong information. Or information they cannot use. Granted, it would be nice to change up the process, but simply solving the problem via Dev fiat should only be used in cases where you have no other options or something is well and truly broken (e.g. titans blapping interceptors).



You mean just abandon the space and pick somewhere else for your op? Sure thing.

That's the only way to deal with cloaks, seems fair.

Asking for a way to hunt cloaks isn't asking for Dev fiat. That's the current paradigm, where balance is waved in lieu of game development.

A way to take care of the problem through a system that allows for conflict between parties is just good gameplay. Failing that, at least balancing the situation to appropriate levels of activity while under cloak would be acceptable, but really would break a lot of things.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5438 - 2016-01-15 06:57:24 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Again... Humping a gate and waiting for whomever decides to use it isn't hunting someone.


Works for me. They are dead and not in your system(s). Problem solved.


It is certainly a way to kill *someone*. It's not hunting a particular someone though. It's taking targets of opportunity, some of whom have cloaks equipped.


Isn't that what cloaking ships do? Take targets of opportunity...which is apparently bad. When somebody does it on a gate, station, POS, etc. to a cloaking ship...that is now somehow bad too?

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Or you need to not give them the information. Or give them the wrong information. Or information they cannot use. Granted, it would be nice to change up the process, but simply solving the problem via Dev fiat should only be used in cases where you have no other options or something is well and truly broken (e.g. titans blapping interceptors).



You mean just abandon the space and pick somewhere else for your op? Sure thing.

That's the only way to deal with cloaks, seems fair.

Asking for a way to hunt cloaks isn't asking for Dev fiat. That's the current paradigm, where balance is waved in lieu of game development.

A way to take care of the problem through a system that allows for conflict between parties is just good gameplay. Failing that, at least balancing the situation to appropriate levels of activity while under cloak would be acceptable, but really would break a lot of things.


I did not say abandon the space. If you hold 5 systems or 3 constellations and a system is being camped and you move over 2 systems you are still in "your space". Nothing has been abandoned.

Similarly if you rat in a group then you are giving them information they may not be able to use. 4-5 guys ratting in a single anomaly in the right kind of ships will be a tough nut for most cloaking guys. They have information...they just can't do much with it.

And as has been pointed out cloaks are quite well balanced in the eyes of the devs and many players, if not most.

And lastly...so a guy in a cloak is snooping around in your space. Finding stuff out. I'm totally fine with it. At least he is working for that intel. Unlike most people who complain about cloaks in general whose efforts towards intel are watching local. Oh...and here I am a guy in a sov holding alliance, fine with it. And there is you, the guy not anywhere in NS. Just thought I'd point that out.

"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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5439 - 2016-01-15 07:01:23 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Was thinking hard and factual about how to make a nice cat and mouse kind of minigame for both hunter and hunted.

---snipped---


The idea was proposed before; it breaks non-covops but perhaps that's somewhat acceptable...? Open for debate.
From the same cloth comes the Sonar Scan, which I personally find more amusing: get a vague idea of within which range a cloaked ship is, and manually pilot, drop cans and thy to close in to finally come within 2000m of it.

It'd be like a DScan window without the "directional" component.

Decloaker Bombs are too easy; every gamecamp would have one and you can kiss your cloaked sabres / asteros / blockade runners / deep space transports goodbye.

Not even getting started on cloaked Black Ops battleships -- I'm sure you're aware they cannot warp while under cloak? You surely don't expect them to burn 50km at 600 m/sec to "actively avoid detection"?


I wonder why neither you, Mike nor Jerghul have picked up on my premise -- unpopular as it may be: right now, the ship is invulnerable under most circumstances, yet everyone in local knows it's there. I've made propositions to ensure the ship is *vulnerable* yet invisible. Invisible is much prefered imho. In may take away from the psychological impact; but it does allow a covops to do its thing *as long as no one knows you're there*. That is what stealth is all about, isn't it? The moment your cover is blown, you may need to move over to other hunting grounds or return later.

The exact how-to I've detailed several pages ago (unfortunately in between the trolling ...) but it DOES include Local. Any fix that does not address local in one way or another is probably doomed to fail, because it takes away from invulnerability without restoring its stealth abilities.

Third category of fixes proposed is requiring cloak users to prove they're at their keyboards -- which is no fix at all. It is still very much possible to obfuscate whether you're actually AFK or not, it doesn't help stealth nor does it allow cloakhunting.

Either way, glad somebody is still posting actual propositions. Thanks for that.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5440 - 2016-01-15 07:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
How is this thread still going on? From CCP's Golden Rules

Quote:
Consent to PvP

You consent to PvP when you click "undock".
You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea.
In most cases, the only way to be 100% safe from aggression inside the game is to be docked in a station. Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


/thread


Be nice if everyone consented to PvP while undocked though.

However, I do take it for evidence that it's understood that cloaks be as safe as a station. Thus to achieve balance we need to remove any and all ship capability from ship under cloak other than navigation that is not available while in station. No ships or temporary objects on overview, no dscan, no probes, no activating of any modules of any kind while the targeting delay is still in effect.

Station safety, station restriction of activity.


Cloaks are not as safe as a station. That is not what that quote said. FFS, it is right there, you merely have to copy and paste it. Like this,

Quote:
Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


See, it wasn't hard.

Quote:
Being cloaked in a secret safespot could work too.


I did it again.

Being cloaked is NOT as safe as a station. Being cloaked at a secret safe spot is about as safe as being docked without actually being docked. It is also pretty damn boring too. And you pose, literally, no threat to anyone so long as you want to maintain that level of safety.

My God...that is so wildly unbalanced. Roll

"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