Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I agree with what you're saying. You obviously need an investment to have an AFK camper. The problem comes from its excessive power given the little counterplay they offer, which was the main reason why off-grid boosting was removed in the first place.



It could be weakened or increased depending on the Sov ADM. I think it would make much more sense.

You should not take on board anything that Teckos (Mr I run from the Mutuality of freighter ganking thread which he had closed when it correctly focussed on the singularity of bumping, LOL) says, he is is wrong about opportunity cost, the key aspect is AFK, Away From Keyboard, so what exactly is the lost opportunity cost when AFK? He will try to skirt around that part because it undermines his case because what opportunities do you have when AFK? You should laugh at him wiggling around what you can do AFK there. There is no agreement with that point it is wrong...

WH space has nothing to do with null sec because there are of hot drops and you don't have instant drop kill as you do in null sec, local has nothing to do with that.

EDIT: Then watch him attack me as a person instead of what I said, if that does not tell you anything about him nothing will.

How do I know I'm right about something? Dracvlad says I'm wrong.

What is lost is that when I am back at my keyboard I cannot use that alt for anything because he is many jumps from where he would be useful.

So my point still stands and once again Dracvlad shows just how frigging stupid he is.

Edit:

BWT, the definition of opportunity cost: the next best opportunity that is forgone for the current choice. Thus, if I use an alt for AFK camping the opportunity cost is whatever I'd use him for if I were not to AFK camp.

Pretty much a straight up text book definition, but Dracvlad is just too stupid to realize it.

The opportunity argument is incorrect and has been throughly thrashed earlier in this thread.

The limiting factor is human time.

Anyone with multiple accounts can use each account to plex the next account until they run out of real life time to manage the accounts effectively.

Anyone who has not yet run out of real life time is playing poorly if they use assets to afk cloaky camp instead of generating income to fund afk cloaky camping and other things once they run out of real life fime.

It is also a bit incredible to believe that a person would afk cloaky camp if they had better things to do with that particular account.

Finally, even if we accept there is an opportunity cost, then it just argues that afk cloaky camping need no further compensation after mechanics change than the boon they gain from releasing idle resources cloaky camping that can be put to better effect realizing whatever opportunity cost the player is claiming to suffer.

Hello, Im baltec. I want to pvp in null sec and specifically I want to pvp against pve ships. I don't want a challenging pvp fight because thats to challenging for me. Im also to bad at finding my targets so I want to camp a bizzy null sec system in my AFK ship just to get a free pvp kill. Just to brag about the killmail to my buddy's. I rather not make the effort of finding my target by warping around because that is to challenging, I rather sit in the same system with a cloak till I can find some helpless person and pownd him down for that killmail. If people ask me I tell them I make null sec better by reducing inflation, cause inflation is bad, I think. Please CCP don't nerf my camping AFK cloak tactic cause I'm so pro at camping and without it I can't play eve like a pro pvp champ killing noobs.

Here is how I see it. There are two types of pvp involving cloaks. There is the genuine cloaked pvper, flying from system to system using the cloak hunting for something manageable as that cloak gives you that opportunity to choose your engagement. There are instances where you engage and you get the kill or get overwhelmed, other times you point but miscalculate and target slips away. Sometimes you get into a system with a few people in the system and stick around for an hour or two baiting for people back into there belts or mining ops but eventually you have to give up because of limitations to your cloak. This type of pvp regarding cloaking I totally agree with. If things were to change and impact this type of gameplay I would be against it myself. I would be sad to see it removed as well as anyone else here.

But then we have the other end of the stick. The type of pvp cloaking ruins completely. The fact that you can stay hidden from everyone indefinitely if there wasn't a downtime and your connection held. This type of broken mechanic is open for abuse and it is right now. Cloaked camping ruins pvp and if anyone supports this type of gameplay for any reason starting from point A being local to any other points like stations being as safe is by any argument reason a complete bullshit. If your so safe as to even be able to go AFK in your ship in space then s**t really have hit the fan. It should be removed and it should happen yesterday. OA and other local, null sec, ratting any other mechanics can and should be discussed but not here in this thread.

baltecs view on getting around locals instant intel just for whoring for easy kills is disgusting. Its quite evident of using the abuse cloaks give and supporting his view of sandbox is just as bad as supporting item duplication. Abusing one mechanic to get around another mechanic doesn't make anything regarding AFK cloak mechanics justifiable.

Are you kidding me. What exactly is it with idiots who think they can jump into deep nullsec and expect people to be as so stupid as to get killed in there own space. What exactly is the point your trying to make? That the only way to kill people in this so called goon space with 30 min warning time would be AFK cloak camping? if that the solution to the problem of your so called fixing the pve risk reward balance? I'm calling out your stupid bullshit right here. If you want a fight without warning go to w-space. If you want to remove local vote fore OA to get implemented. Don't be stupid and ask to keep AFK cloaking mechanics to stay. That mechanic is not by any long shot balanced and brings nothing but meaningless pvp camping. It serves nothing but to reduce gaming content for everyone involved.

There are multiple ways to get around the pre warnings. You could log out in the system your trying to catch people. Or camp in an unexpected system next to an active area. Use interceptors with implants to warp on top of people before they can react. Your not supposed to always catch people. Its part of the cycle of pvp where you shouldn't be able to easily kill people who avoid getting killed. Pve and pvp in this game don't mix all to well and in most games never have. Its a really weak argument and a ****** justification when stating that AFK cloaks are the only counter to risk free pve in null. In fact the only risk free activity is AFK cloak camping.

Let me see if I have gotten it right. You think that cloaks should hide you from your target and insure an engagement. On top of that ignoring that your also given ample intel prior to the engagement. Local ruins this, so camping counters local.

All you want is assured engagements. You wont get that and shouldn't, you have to work for it. Your entitled arrogance thinking that you can bring pvp on your terms to anyone undocked but not have the same happen to you when cloaked is just astounding. Your in null and so should your ship be at risk, even if cloaked. If local helps people dodge engagements then abusing camping tactics and thinking its a counter is just as stupid as thinking that your eligible for always getting engagements and be exempt from the at them at the same time. Thinking so is the route of stupidity that drives this discussion to the ground.

In null, if you want to force engagements you should and have the ability to attack the structures anchored in space. If you want covert tactics, head to w-space. If you think local is to overpowered gtfo and start a new thread.

Its a matter of choice. Taking that choice away from the player by mechanic is the discussion, not the what if scenario of some player doing this or that. The problem is the lack of choice the target has on engaging back. Its an imbalanced mechanic where only one side have the ability to engage. Given cloaks should tip the engagement balance by definition and is the intended use. But there needs to be balance where it's not a complete one sided nature. At most it should be a 90/10 or at least 95/5 where the cloak have a 5% chance to get directly engaged, maybe less. Right now its stupidly 99.99/0.01, and retardedly 100/0 when in safespot.

By the definition of gimped combat capability vs reward of improved choice of engagement, is balanced if you ignore the other benefits. You clearly ignore the benefit such as being un-engagable. If you ignore that aspect then your right, but if you add in the full scope of cloakings total benefits then no. The second benefit needs a counter, not the first one. The un-engagable part needs a tweak.