Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well yeah, easily sneak up. Or any time the structure is down, it would be the same effect as AFK cloaking now, where people are unable to do anything, effectively meaning you can have the same effect as AFK cloaking now without even having to be logged on. Bear in mind not everyone will be able to deploy structures. So some random group blows up a bunch of intel structures, now the region is effectively down until they can be replaced. Sounds truly awful.

This just sounds like more of this "alliances must spend all day every day defending themselves from tiny groups" theory. ITS A GAME, NOT A CAREER. Why should a group that wants to own sov have to keep defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it. I know on paper TO YOU it sounds like a great idea, but it would kill off sov null.

Exactly, Like I keep saying, its TOO BIG A CHANGE to simply discuss as part of a simple change such as AFK cloaking. So flesh out the idea before parading it around like a ready to go product.

You're not though. You are only arguing for the same level of effort in a single scenario. Once you get up wot fleet fights, for example, it's not the same effort at all. I just want AFK players moved to deadspace and marked as AFK, not for any effort change, but simply to stop AFK players being able to shut down whole sections of space. You are blowing it up to be me trying to nuke cloaking ability into the ground and get everything free. Honestly, I'm happy with it as it is, since its such a tiny change and I couldn't care less if most of null sits empty, but the end result is that the larger groups take more space to spread out even more. Exaggerate it all you want, but AFK cloakers add nothing to the game and their removal would only add more diversity.

The change you are arguing for would give smaller groups a massive advantage, as like now, they wouldn't rely on local intel, while people in PVE/mining ships would have no chance until it is too late, unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money defending structures that would be targeted by randoms for no reason other than being easy to kill. Again you want changes that benefit a single playstyle. I don't.

You talk like non-consensual PvP doesn't exist in null, which is absolute nonsense. It does exist, and the removal of the AFK ability of cloakers would not affect that even a tiny little bit.

Your argument is dancing all over the place, but I will try to address your points.

Fleets, aka blobs, are not affected by local in a meaningful way. They don't know if that cluster of enemies is flying alpha doctrine BS's, or SB's. And assuming they won't know if the enemy fleet is in the same system otherwise, is a joke.

AFK players being moved to deadspace DOES remove them from consideration.
The idea you should be free from uncertainty is ridiculous. This removes uncertainty.

If AFK Cloakers are needed to create uncertainty, then they are contributing a vital asset to the game.
A set of events with an obvious and predictable outcome? That's a movie, not a game. After you see it the first time, you know how it ends.
How many months would you pay to see the same predictable outcome repeated?

As to non consensual PvP existing in null:
A prepared player in home sov can evade a hostile every time.
It doesn't matter if it is a fleet, or a single frigate.
And if it threatens the structures, the pilots can choose to leave the area.

When you can choose not to fight, it became consensual.

Maybe the fix is to make a person disappear from local if they have no inputs for 2 hours or some time

At first this sounds good, but think about what the covert cyno actually sends through.

Gimped or overpriced combat ships, which either need to walk home, or send in a billion ISK taxi to return them.

They are probably a more interesting target than whatever they dropped on, when you think about it....

Just annoying how an afk cloaker can force players to take action with 0 effort. They ARE attacking because assuming they aren't leaves you vulnerable to the possibility that they are active.

Another mechanic in the game where there is reward for zero effort.

Oh i see that there was a generations shift while i was gone =)

Pray tell, how exactly another player (and an AFK one, to top that) can force you to do anything?

I'll offer you a way out right away - you're feeling forced to do something because you're, hmm... how do i put this... lazy/greedy/otherwise challenged to consider your options, and feel entitled, for some reason, to things you're not?

Indeed.
And yet Nikk and Teckos complain to no end about low effort mechanics. Funny how they only care about low effort on the side against them. On their side it is fine.

And that's the point.

They are indeed not affecting the game. They are doing nothing. At all.

You are doing all the stuff. You are the one docking up, you are the one switching to another system, you are the one complaining.

And You are the one that claims an afk player is doing something when in fact that is impossible to be true.

If you think that then that "Sov Holding Alliance" doesn't deserve to hold that territory and should be freed from the burden of having to provide "defensive fleets up 24/7 just to hold it."

It's a game and it has consequences...you want to hold a region 24/7 with all the rewards it brings then you have to defend it 24/7 or risk the loss...don't have the man power then sov null isn't for you and best go elsewhere or roam like PL (I believe they hold no sov or didn't).