Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It's inherent in every one of your posts.

Every single thing you say is all about how the nasty PVE guy got safe before you could shoot him.

You even said it outright up above, "I'm not saying I should be able to catch him, but I should have a better chance to catch him".

You have the chance now. You just don't like that people that are staying awake and aware over long periods of time, having taken the precaution of coming to space cleared for them by the continuing efforts of their alliance, staying aligned and paying attention to intel channels and such get to safety more than you catch them.

But you totally should catch them despite all that, because they are PvE and easy to kill and you want to see ships explode, just not your own.

At what point to you just admit you are here just to troll, and have no real points?

I mean, you won. AFK cloaking is completely balanced. You even have a quote of Fozzie saying so, even though the underlying reasoning is utterly destructive to having a healthy game and the core concepts of the game have to be warped to single out and provide immunity to pvp for one particular playstyle so long as it harms another.

You have your victory through Developer fiat. Pat yourself on the back and go afk cloak till your heart's content.

A healthy Eve Online is one where there is player interaction...PvP where ships blow up and more. Yes, some players might leave, but then the game was never intended for players that want to be shielded from such interaction. It was intended for people who want to do bad things to others in game (making their ships explode, emptying a corporation of all of its assets and ISK, building up a giant Ponzi style scheme to bilk thousands of players out of hundreds of billions of ISK, etc.).

All of those things in parentheses above, CCP has basically used them for ads to get more players in game....and all of those things...they are where 1 or more players have harmed another (in game that is). On purpose...with intent.

Allowing for cloaked ships to be hunted does not prevent PvP. In fact, it brings PvP to those cloaked ships where it wasn't possible before.

The game is a sandbox. If some want to play in such a way as to shield others from direct PvP, that is as equally valid as shooting the ones being protected. You should not have an automatic Dev Fiat saying that you need an unchallengeable way to defeat their efforts in a sandbox game, but you do and it is therefore balanced.

I have no problem with any of the above things in parenthesis. You will note that none of them required core game concepts to be warped to favor one side over the other.... unlike the stance that cloaks are balanced as is because their immunity to PvP is one of the most effective ways to hunt PvE

Actually, the pressure cloaked ships bring against PvE ships would be completely lost, in the event local remained unchanged while cloaking was made vulnerable.

Added to which, with greatly reduced utility to threaten with, or even be secure by using a cloak, players will simply stop using them as being pointless.

So, to recap: Less PvP: owing to cloaked play no longer bringing risk to PvE.
No compensating uptick in PvP against cloaked targets, as their expected value in protection will be diminished, resulting in reduced game presence.
They'll sit in friendly space in POS or Outpost, possibly logged off.

Cloaked players need a positive reason to use these items. If they stop being useful, why gimp your ship with one?

So, you are saying that the PvP guy won't want to PvP if the situation isn't 100% on his terms? How is he not ridiculed ant told htfu? I mean we are being sold the idea that these systems are defenseless, yet some mysterious force will magically eject any ship not cloaked. I am still not seeing anything resembling a justification to being immune to non-consensual PvP other than "hur, hur, cloak let's me shoot PvE guy".

The issue with your point is that the cloak isn't creating PvP that would not otherwise be there (for the most part), it's just forcing the PvE to dock or move from the area. It does not bring in defense and create new PvP, because the cloak is immune to that. If the goal is PvP then cloaks are absolutely and amazingly bad at it.

If the ship could be hunted, then it would create PvP- with itself as the target. Defenses could actively move in while the PvE got clear (notice how PvE is still disrupted in this scenario, the stated purpose of the cloaker), and if the cloaker was active and in a cov-ops ship he would still be able to evade those defensive efforts.

You don't need to be able to disrupt PvE forever just because you logged in. PvE isn't some sacred cow that can never be halted. However, it's reasonable to allow the PvE guy the opportunity to switch to PvP to claim the space for his purpose, rather than allowing the cloak guy to drop the value of the system below that of high sec, indefinitely.

The PvE content is so stupid because any attempt to make it better for over a decade has been met with monumental resistance from an extremely vocal minority. It could be developed to encourage group play. It could be developed to benefit bringing in more fleet roles than just dps/tank and logistics. That's why you see solo PvE as the law.... The content actively discourages group play. If PvE wasn't pigeonholed into suicidal fits from a PvP perspective you would get less running. The Corp and Alliance leaderships do not put any expectation of day to day defending space on the PvE pilots because they will lose. Instead they discourage it, or require PvE to reship (by which time the hostile is gone or eternally cloaked rather than engaging in the ever holy pvp), and any ship loss you incur is exempt from their ship replacement policies for being stupid.

You cannot argue the double standard that the PvE guy should be allowing engagements, or fighting in conditions where engagements are likely, or else doing PvE for similar or worse rewards than in high sec when every aspect of doing so is punished and the PvP guy is not only as risk adverse but can actually use a magic "I'm immune" button to encountering risk of his own. The PvP crowd does not want to see PvE content developed, does not want to see PvE content that requires fleets, does not want to see PvE content that encourages diversity in fits...because the only purpose for PvE is to provide soft targets. Yes, it's needed to produce more ships and modules, but that is only so long as they do so using ships that are soft targets. For anyone not interested in doing PvP 101% of the time, EVE is a bait and switch. They say sandbox, but all the pails and shovels belong to the violent kids.

Stopping it there, as the remaining assumed that I was in agreement with this keystone paragraph above.

Your PvP guy will simply go do PvP in other forms, or possibly occupy himself in other game aspects they enjoy.

Simply put, they won't be deep diving into the big blue doughnut, because they can't penetrate that far without a cloak.
And even if they could evade defenses long enough to reach a system, they couldn't actually spend the time to hunt there, as they would be chased further.
An elaborate game of 'red rover', fails to meet most players description of fun inside the game.
(Google it if not familiar, it's a kid's game)

You are left offering them only blob tactics, or roams, as consolation PvP tactics. Both of which fail to threaten internal systems where farming reigns supreme.

Taking the cloaked player out of the equation, does not solve the problem.
We need both sides invested in resolution, instead of evasion, and then we can see positive results.

They can't shoot rats? They can't be alt accounts that you can alt-tab back to? They can't scout incoming WHs/who/what is next door/etc? They can't BM/look up info on POS's set up in system?



Name what specific PvE you are thinking of here. And fortunately you have the ability to join a corp and run with other people from day one! No need to wait for skill training to do that!



If you're doing what I suggested, you're not losing ships, so the floor in profitability is zero isk per hour. The last time I checked, no PvE content is less than that. Correct me if I'm wrong.



Link me what specific content you are talking about and what fit you are using please. I can help you out.



They are hardly immune. You can't look up their corp? See who else is online? What systems they fly in? What ships they use? What people say about them on forums?

Gather intel on the dirty nasty cloaker and be prepared for them to uncloak. That is your counter. Working as intended.

You can use a cloak to penetrate space without it being indefinitely immune to non-consensual PvP. The same methods that enable it to get to the system in the first place would also enable it to stay in system while active.

The PvE player isn't without risk. Enemy pilots can and do come in, having either used ships capable of evading defenses (not all of which are cloaked), or from wormholes. The issue appears to be that they won't hang around for tackle. It's important that PvE be vulnerable to disruption, which happened the second you entered the system, not that they be tackled and destroyed.

A cloaked player obliged to actively ensure his safety is just as effective as an AFK one immune to non-consent, except that both sides get to have fun.

Wait, the PvE ships are considered beaten if their activity is disrupted....
But a cloaked ship needs to be driven out or destroyed?

Are we going to pretend that a force, predictably overwhelming to a cloaked pilot, does not disrupt their attempt to hunt the PvE ship?
And that such disruption is not enough on the cloaked side, while satisfying gameplay on the PvE team?

That seems a harsh double standard.

Let's not be so quick to assign negatively altruistic motives to the cloaked player... disrupting PvE may be a significant event to the local team, but it gives nothing tangible to a player invested in cloaking.

Never seen in chat: 'See that kill board entry? Disrupted mining for 2 hours.. and over there? Nearly 4 hours of ratting lost to the opponents....'

Only corporate sponsors and scarecrows have an interest in disruption. It's a weak consolation to the other players.
It hardly qualifies as game content, on many scales of desirability.