Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I dont have any big issue with cloaking, being AFK should be adressed with or without cloak.

that being said, is running a module (who cycles, to exclude cloaking) counts as being active ? People who run links would have to say yes. People in station never docking might be quite active running the market, recruiting, scamming/scheming in channels, refitting ships. To the outside observer, the cowards are just hiding in stations. Changing skill queue, PI, contracting, managing industry , there's so much to do in EvE, and you can do plenty from afar in a cloaky ship to add to paranoia in the game. Playing Eve don't mean the same thing from one player to another. I do believe Null sec has this name for a reason : NO SECURITY. I believe if you can't bear it you should go do your carebearing elsewhere (you want no local ? try wormholes you'll be safe I swear ^^).

One point makes sense, anti cloaking should be a thing. Detection/evasion techniques are always trying to compete with each other to get the upper hand, so it seems illogical to me to have a system-broad thing that cancel cloaking. Even 0.1 AU wide area is too big as well for me.
The only thing that works now is bumping a cloaky ship to make it visible. I think a debris bomb could be something to consider.
10 to 50 km wide , relatively slow wave velocity (100-200 m/s emanating from detonation point), using large volume ammo so you have to use the bomb wisely, maybe some heat damage instead. I suppose parasiting your own cloak when you activate the device makes sense as well. I'm not set on giving that to a specific module, a specific ship role, or an ammo for a bomb launcher. I suppose fitting balance, CPU PG use discussion must take place at the time we choose one or the other, and I suppose people can contribute better than me on this.
This will never be of use on a safe spot cloaky ship, could be a thing to detect gate campers and moving safely some cargo.

I have two pieces of feedback on this.

First, my all-time favorite dev quote:

That is to say, AFK cloakers are not a problem with game balance.

Secondly, to that end, two years ago this month I offered the following post, which covered the only game-driven need for decloaking (among many more important subjects relative to Local and Intel, which is the real need here):
https://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

It was largely supported at the time by now-CSM member Mynnna as well:
http://www.themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Two years later, most of this is still relevant.

Server safe logout after 2 hours of player inactivity no input from mouse or keyboard all the useless afk people in stations and cloaked in space would greatly reduce server loads and the games network. they are afk shut them down makes eve a little better for people activly playing :) plus its a good way to get people more active

I felt a desire to address this point.

The expectation of both sides to maintain a strike force is equally unlikely, as I will explain after.


You do understand, I hope, that the expectation is to match the defense to the expected threat.
The attacking force cannot simply KNOW when they are needed, as quite often there are no targets available.
They are waiting on the target(s) to undock, leave the POS, or simply log into the system.
So, they are equally unlikely to be willing to wait extended times for this opportunity.

The defender?
If they are at all competent, they have this protective ambush waiting when they undock.
The attacker cannot know if the ambush is there, but they also have no idea how long the target will PvE either.
They have to gamble on whether it is safe enough to attack, and how long they can wait before the target leaves.

You speak for more of us, than I think you realize.

I have a 4 year old son, and while he is not considered special needs, I am effectively restrained very much in the way you are.
On the plus side, he likes playing Plants-VS-Zombies garden warfare with me.
On the negative side, he can often block me from playing almost anything else.

In WH space, not at all. I also tend to agree with much of what you said.

It's funny how many claim that AFK cloaking is OP. The thing is whilst the intel from local is guaranteed, the psychological effects from AFKing are not. I wasn't ever affected by AFK cloakers, I merely accepted null wasn't safe and flew accordingly.

But I do think that things are balanced atm. To change things slightly in one direction, in order to alleviate the fear some feel from seeing some neutral/red pilot in local, could upset that balance. I've seen far to many changes from CCP, that went way too far one way.

I wish people would be more honest about this topic.

A guy afk cloaked in a system for a hour or a day. Not a big deal. PVE players should learn to deal with it. A cloaked ship flying thru high/low sec moving from point a to b. Again. Not a big deal. Cloaking in general is not a bad thing. Almost every genre of sci fi has it and most games of this nature have it.

I have voiced in the past my dislike of prolonged system camping. The potential for a hot drop is a big deal when you are putting millions of isk worth of ships on the field, OR if your ISK income is based on manufacturing items. PVPers tend to forget the ship they are in was built by someone. These ships and modules dont just rain down from the sky. Someone farmed them from rats or built them.

So all the 11 pages of fluff so far is just that, fluff. So stop it.

So what I personally think is a problem is that person that chooses to spend weeks in a system camping it. This is something that needs to be addressed. Though a completely valid tactic to disrupt operations in the system, it is very one sided. Once a camper enters a system, removal of that player is IMPOSSIBLE unless that player chooses to be removed, either by leaving or by making a mistake with a chosen target. This in itself is not balance. There should be a way to confront this player and remove them from space. Now I like the idea of being able to probe down a cloak with special probes. It takes skills, time, and it doesnt give 100% flawless info, especially if the person moves. This would leave all valid forms of current cloaking intact. You couldnt probe down a cloaky squad, or a moving target. This would really only work for prolonged campers in a system.

CCP has admitted that cloaking is not perfect. This thread being sticky shows that they are looking at the community for information. Original intentions of cloaking no longer matter. ISBoxer was originally considered perfectly acceptable yet, now its functionality has been reduced greatly. CCP can change their minds, so arguments quoting CCPs original ideas are no longer valid.

PVE players need to realize that PVP players are going to hunt them down. Life in EVE is not safe. If you cant handle that, play some other game.

PVP players need to realize that PVE players are going to build things. Those things are needed for EVE to survive. You can not look down on PVE players simply cause you find mining or ratting boring.

Removing local is not an answer. Local is a necessary evil for the game. People need to chat. Even if local was removed, intel channels would take it's place.

WH players have little say in the arguments of Null sec AFK cloaking. The mechanics of WH space are not the same as null. comparing the two is not even close.

I wish people would not believe their view to be centric, when it demonstrates a clear bias towards one side.



By the numbers, as this post offered multiple points to address.

1, both A & B
We know that industry manufactures things. You seem to imply the game will spin out of control, in the event that current rules / events stay as they are. You also seem to paint PvE players as helpless victims.
We, (PvE players), are neither helpless nor victims. That is a perception fostered by poor choices of various individuals.

Many of us have shown a proven ability to fight quite capably against so-called AFK Cloaking threats.

2
By not having arguments aligned with your view, you here suggest they must be invalid fluff.
I can see now you will be quite open minded.

3
They do not need to be removed. They are, by specific definition, doing absolutely nothing, and are not even actively capable of being a threat.
Now, if you refer to those who ARE active, then you are instead asking for removal of all actual AFK pilots. This will have the remarkable effect of highlighting active players for avoidance by those not interested in PvP.
Local will only have active pilots listed, since AFK players won't be there anymore. That is a significant buff to this intel.

4
Local, in it's current specific form, is not necessary.
It has in fact changed and evolved over time, historically not always giving at-a-glance standings as it does now.

1
I did not claim to quote you directly.
Your pointing out the value of PvE players has little to no standing, unless the status quo somehow threatens their existence.
Whether this takes the form of direct violence in game, or peer pressure to change play styles.

2
Wormhole operation is different, and no single detail defines this by itself. Pointing out the absence of local not crippling that side of the game, regardless of your objections, demonstrates that the game can be successfully balanced to not display cloaked vessels.
Nothing more than that.

3
The THREAD is specific to AFK Cloaking. If you elect to go off-topic, please be more clear about it.
Regardless of this distinction, cloaked play over extended periods of time is frequently described as AFK, based on the perception of the opposing players.
It is blatantly obvious that the only genuine threat is from active players, who possibly were mistaken for being AFK.
As many have pointed out already, a genuinely AFK player is not a genuine threat.

4
The standings in local being given by local, diminishes the effort some players would be willing to make in order to determine a threat. Local generously tells everyone not to worry, whenever a green or blue indicator is given.
Automated reassurance FTW.

5
The simple truth, is that your statements convey these aspects to a reader.
Maybe you did not intend to imply them, even if not stated more plainly.
I am not assuming anything of significance, beyond the possibility that you may not realize this.

You do realize when people say remove local they don't actually mean remove it. They mean make it so you don't automatically show up in local when you enter a system. Just like in WH space. It will still be there for you to talk in if you want to...but doing so broadcasts your information in local.

If local functioned this way then AFK cloaking instantly disappears. Why? Because you don't know if anyone is there. Problem solved with minimal effort.