Player Features and Ideas Discussion

In particular, on this day? It does not, except for locking me out of using smartbombs because some jackasses think it's funny to probe mission pockets and get CONCORD to kill you. With no way to look for enemies on grid, the safe play is simply not to play.

Not in the simple minded way you are trying to use it to justify buffing your style of game play. My point is that the cloaked player can only maintain that level of safety by foregoing all the other potential uses of his ship. A freighter should be just as safe so long as it never hauls or goes to haul anything would be the closer analogous argument. And guess what kind of freighter that is…one that never undocks.

No he has a good grasp. That was one of my points earlier. There is a considerable cost to having a cloaky camper sitting and cloaky camping. I have 4 alts that could cloaky camp 4 systems. You know what I don't do it. Not just because I don't want to take the time to get them into a system to cloaky camp (part of the costs you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge in your imbecilic posts), but those alts are worth much more to me to be sitting in a station doing invention. I make literally nothing while cloaky camping.

Now you could argue, well then why do it? Well I would do it if it was something important to my alliance. If we were to cloaky camp a set of systems for :reasons: then I’d do it. I accept the fact that I sometimes have to set aside personal gain (in game) to help the alliance meet a set of goals. Another reason another player might do it is to try and get kills (to me the costs here are just not worth it, which highlights again your sophomoric understanding of the notion of costs). Yet a third is to try and lower ADM indices. However, all of these things have solutions. I have enumerated a number of them. If people come in and cloaky camp your systems (either AFK or even worse ATK) you are being attacked. You should have people logging in, getting in fleet, you should have a response fleet, people in bait ships ratting, etc. If you aren’t doing this, you deserve to lose your space and whining here on the forums like a little girl is just pathetic and deserving of nothing short of contempt.

In short it does matter what that player is doing….and what he is NOT doing are very much part of the discussion. You have made arguments about costs and the benefits, but you realized they were losing arguments and so now you have fallen back to this: “if it is in space it should be vulnerable” angle. And you did it without even admitting that the arguments your cost/benefits claims were right and you were wrong. And you are still wrong because you cannot divorce these things (what is the player doing, what benefits does the player get, etc.) from the discussion of balance. If I have a ship in game that cannot be destroyed by any other player flown ship and only I have it. But it is sitting at a “safe” (i.e. it is not near anything, you’d need probes to find me…or even if I was visible anywhere in system in the overview…but again not on grid with anything else, no stations, no pocos, nothing) and I cannot move it….is that horribly unbalanced? I can only shoot what is on grid and in range. I would argue it may not be unbalanced because while I’m completely invulnerable the overall impact on the game is going to be minimal. Using your argument this would be horribly, horribly unbalanced.

No, that would be a freighter that's docked.

What you are saying is that freighter should be safe so long as it's not moving very fast, but still outside the station, only a target when actually moving. If it sits still it becomes invulnerable.

Problem is, you should not have the choice to sit safely in space, especially in hostile territory. There should be a way for others to force you to move, regardless of what you choose to do or not do. Nonconsent should be a thing for everyone.

This is not a case of more effort for thee and less for me. You currently do not have any obligation to expend any effort at all. If you want to be that safe, park it in an npc station. It's what they are for.

It does not have to be casual or easy, but everyone in space should be vulnerable in some way.

Claiming that a ratter watching Intel channels and local is too safe is complaining that you don't threaten someone you aren't even in the solar system with, and that they should be forced to stay there with you. When does that end? When is it ok to get to safety if you don't want to play that way? I guess if they don't want to play with you they just should not play EvE at all right?

Congratulations on your pyrric victory.

Can we give destroyer class ships the capability of detect cloaked ships, just like the real world destroyer that hunts submarine? Give them a specialized module that needs to be actively tracking cloaked ships. Or anti-cloaking drone equipped in high slot that are only for destroyers? And this way, destroyers can have another specialized role. Any ideas?

I am firmely in the camp that is against claoky campers.
Dont get me wrong, null sec needs to stay risky but it needs to be balanced and cloaky camping is not.
Cloaky camping puts all the advantages in the hands of the attacker.
- cloaky camper had near perfect intell (he knows when he is active and when not)
- cloaky camper knows when something will happen and can ALWAYS choise his time and place
- this means the defender is always reacting and cant do anything proactive. Dont even start abaout baiting because have fun baiting someone that isnt even there.

[snip]

It would be easier for CCP to just remove cloaks from the game as your "suggestion" would just completely break any valid gameplay when using them.