Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mike's idea of a standing fleet is a fleet sitting in a POS or somewhere waiting and waiting for something to happen. He can't seem to wrap his head around that a standing fleet is all ratters in the same fleet on comms in ships with a cyno fit. That way you can call for help quickly.

The irony is sometime back there was thread asking for anomalies to be cyno jammed (not covert cynos) because trying to take down a Goon carrier typically results in 5 carriers, 2 supers, a titan and 50 sup-caps getting dumped on you.

AFK cloaky camping promotes passive griefing.

i really wish ccp finally closes this thread cause its been griefing these forums for ages now.

enough with the tic for tac... just rebalance and nerf this foolishness will you please ccp!

Griefing is against the TOS. If you see someone griefing please report it through a ticket.

AFK cloaking is not griefing by any definition of the word. It doesn't earn ISK and doesn't hurt anyone by the nature of how the module works.

But yes, please rebalance this foolishness. Nerf local chat in null given it lets PvE-ers get away literally 100% of the time, provided they aren't AFK netflixing (which is infinitely worse than AFK cloaking, since they are actually making ISK while away)



Given the AFK cloaker can't earn ISK or kill anyone, why is that a problem? Someone docked in a station doesn't need to do anything to maintain their safety, how is that any different?

This was more than ridiculous. You have a threat of non-consent on others the minute you decide to own space. Deal with it. Form standing fleets 100% of the time, always have someone in your ratting group have a cyno, be prepared to defend yourself.

If you can't manage that, you shouldn't be in null. The issue isn't AFK cloaking. It's nullbears who want to PvE in 100% safety.

And again.... 100% safety while in space exists only for cloaked ships.

Nullbears, or anyone, cannot ever be 100% safe without a cloak. They are in space, easily located, and generally easily targeted.

A search of killboards will reveal many such kills each day, despite these claims of 100% safety. A simple experiment of sitting pretty much anywhere you like, ignoring traffic and not defending nor evading will reveal the falsehood of 100% safety for anyone not cloaked sooner or later.

The AFK cloaker does not have complete freedom. They have a very limited set of options: remain cloaked and do nothing but sit idle in space, or decloak and get killed by the defense fleet. And since most players don't want to commit suicide that means it's a single option: put their cloaked ship into a safespot and wait passively until the owners of the system decide to allow the cloaked ship to do anything else.



Yes, that's the entire point of having a cloak. If you are cloaked in a safespot you have 100% safety, but you can not activate any modules or commit any aggressive action. Contrast this with the active PvE player, who has a risk of being hunted down and killed but also the ability to farm PvE content and make ISK. Of course the two players should face different levels of risk.

Also, note that what you're saying only applies if the cloaker stays cloaked in a safespot. If they decide to attack they face all the risks of PvP and all the burdens of maintaining their own safety.



No, I have no investment in the predator's success. I am quite happy with the idea of an AFK cloaker trying to gank someone and getting splattered by a defense fleet. I'm happy with the idea of an AFK cloaker being frustrated and forced to stay cloaked until they give up and move on to easier prey in some other system. What I am against is coddling bad players who are too lazy to defend their space and want an "I win" button they can press to make an AFK cloaker go away.



EVE is not a balanced game, and was never meant to be a balanced game. It has always been easier to destroy the work of a group than to organize and build something, and that has been a deliberate design goal since day 1. This is what makes the accomplishments of the groups that are strong enough to build something worthy of respect, unlike the sad PvE-farming "accomplishments" of people in conventional MMOs.

There is no point where anyone in space without an active cloak can not be vigilant and still maintain his safety. Regardless of cloaked campers in system, a pilot not cloaked is at risk and must stay vigilant. I do not seek to change that in any way. Defense fleets and such do not go away just because the campers do- in fact, the camps exist because of the fleets, not the other way around. The arguments about people not defending their space are ridiculous fabrications, all the butt hurt about the need for camps exist because people defend their space.

100% safety is a hyperbolic lie, unless you are using a cloak.

All the hurf blurf false arguments about local fail in the face of local working the same for everyone, with the sole exception of loading time-- and a compromise on that was rejected out of hand as being immaterial.

Some equivalent of effort should exist for the cloaked ship as well, especially in the presence of active hunters. At no point should a ship operating in space be so safe that you can leave the keyboard secure in your invulnerability... Doing so should come at the expense of increased risk, not improved effectiveness.

Of course not. He is cloaked, he is no threat until he decloaks at which point you are free to shoot you.

Player is in a cloaked ship: He cannot target, he cannot lock you. He can't really do anything besides scare you via local.

While cloaked you cannot target him nor can you shoot him. Local warns you he is there and that you should take precautions.

Balanced. Maybe not optimal, but that is what CCP is supposedly looking into with the observatory array.

No, those arguments are the uncomfortable truth that you don't want to admit. If people are actively defending their space then an AFK cloaker can not do anything but sit cloaked in a safespot, engaging a target is instant suicide. And at that point who cares if there's an AFK cloaker in system, they're just an irrelevant name in local that you can safely ignore. The only people who have anything to lose from AFK cloaking are garbage-tier alliances that are unable or unwilling to actively defend their space and think that they should be able to farm PvE content like it's highsec.



No, it's literal truth. The time to enter warp and become invulnerable (assuming you are smart and aligned already) is less than the recalibration delay plus lock time of a decloaking ship. The only way a cloaked ship will ever catch a target is if they get careless and fail to take appropriate defensive precautions.



And any proposal for such a system inevitably runs into the problem of being too effective against ATK cloaked ships. If your "I win" button can reveal and kill an AFK cloaked ship then it can do the same against someone who is ATK, and the value of a cloak is reduced to a temporary delay in dying while your enemies take a moment to press the "I win" button.

Sorry, not being capable of aggression isn't an excuse for being immune to aggression.

For instance, Pods and shuttles are very fragile, incapable of even mounting weapons, yet enjoy no similar protection. Mining ships, industrial ships, and freighters are also quite inoffensive, yet get no similar protection.

In fact, by your logic the targets the cloaked camper hunts should become immune to everything simply by taking their weapons offline- it's much more difficult and time consuming in the absence of a maintenance array from another ship or structure to bring those back up than it is to drop cloak and wait out the targeting delay.