You are comparing A to B now…
2 Likes
Nope. It is the same thing. The guy logs in and goes AFK every day. The war dec players know they are under a war dec…samething. There is an uncertain threat sitting out there waiting for them. Just like our AFK camper.
So clearly this too is a broken mechanic. Imposing uncertainty on players is bad apparently.
Edit: Note, I consider uncertainty as being distinct from risk.
You are comparing A to B.
How is wardeccing someone and not undocking the same thing as camping SOV nullsec in 100% safety? You must be very tired…
2 Likes
If I am docked I am 100% safe. Nothing says I must be undocked for a war dec. But since I can undock (decloak) at any time (from the targets perspective) I am now an uncertain threat.
I’m perfectly fine thanks…I think it is you that is tired. If you can’t see the parallels, then just stop replying. It’s okay, many people have issues with abstract thinking and thought experiments.
Core concept of the game: everyone is at danger once undocked
reality: everyone is at danger except cloaky campers once undocked
You must be either very tired, or for some reason unable to understand a very simple thing.
2 Likes
Yes. If you are undocked and cloaked at a safe and do nothing you are very, very safe. You can also do nothing while maintaining that safety. Hence it is actually balanced.
Mike Voidstar has been beating on this drum for ages. I understand the argument. I think it is false. A cloaked ship doing something is actually at risk. A cloaked ship doing nothing is not.
Then what you think is false.
Eve is eve because you are at danger if you undock. Simple enough.
2 Likes
Unless you are cloaked at a safe which has been true from pretty much the beginning. It is the one exception as noted ages ago by Akita T and her (his?) Golden Rules. And also as expressed by CCP Phantom.
So what I think is not false. Thanks.
FYI: You don’t have to bother replying. I know you disagree. Its fine, you’re next post will merely be a variant on me being wrong Akita T being wrong and CCP Phantom being wrong. I get it. You think we are all wrong. Fine. Understood.
I accept your surrender
I have the corpse of one. Just sayin’.
1 Like
He was a fool to undock. 
Kind of like a cloaked ship that thought it could take the ratting bait I suppose. Oh wait, that never ever happens either. 
1 Like
C’mon @Ag3nt_Jita we can’t have a funny anecdote post followed by a joking response without you interjecting some snide commentary. It won’t just do not having your pestilential posting. 
It’s probably past his bed time.
1 Like
I had made a thread with an idea and an ISD merged my thread me into this one so yes I had not read OP.
Then perhaps I can suggest you look over this thread, at least the op…
https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699
Note, the list of links to “suggestions regarding cloaks” continues at the following link…
https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3334125#post3334125
1 Like
Did that just before replying to you. I had not noticed before an hour ago that the ISD had moved my thread to here.
Just a thought! When the first numb nuts actually sues EVE/CCP or what ever from psychological issues with cloaky campers (I am sure this will happen as people are funny that way) would that be a bona fide rational example of AFK cloaking harming some one?
Please don’t part with dysfunctional replies , as this is a genuine queistion
No. It would be like claiming injury because I made a mean face at you while playing checkers.
Ahhh but addictive gaming is now found to be an illness and treated as such (so a psychological error like this could occur) so this gives an opening for this to happen
1 Like
And actually in this day and age it is sorry to say that yes I probably could get a layer to get me a claim against you making a face at me, such is the sad state we live in today.
However we march boldly on with this topic 
1 Like