No because having 100% safety leads to stale boring gameplay.
So youâre saying we should have an undock timer, after a certain time players are forced to undock?
You need to go read the dev blogs on asset safety where they clearly explain the need for stations and why they are safe.
EVE working as intended. You tried, you failed, you got kicked out and had to go back to highsec. The solution is to get better at EVE and have a stronger alliance next time, not to whine that PvP happens in nullsec and you canât just farm PvE sites all day.
I didnât realize storytelling automatically constitutes as whining. Besides Iâm through with nullsec. My home is in the wormholes and I love it.
So youâre saying we should have an undock timer, after a certain time players are forced to undock?
Like I already said IF YOU UNDOCK you consent to pvp.
Thatâs the fun part of forced undock 
This is one of the oldest and stalest of the false equivalency arguments in favor of cloaks, trying to make a trivial cost module equal to that of a station or even POS.
Itâs really just another way of asking to be able to kill people who arenât in space with you.
They find themselves too weak, scared and uprepared for residentâs defense fleets, so mock the people who got out of space rather than stay and explode⌠while hiding under their nanny button.
The worst part is, they are not wrong⌠the safety offered by a cloak far surpasses that offered by POS or Stations. The stations and POS do have other functions, as is proper given their relative cost in time, ISK and Effort to maintain, but the safety and asset security of stations is a necessary function to make the game as a whole worth playing. The safety of a cloak should not even be in the same ballpark, much less superior to the structures specifically designed as safe spaces.
Again with this lie. Cloaks do not keep you safe from defense fleets because you are already safe from defense fleets no matter what modules you fit. Warping between safespots is faster than a defense fleet can locate you, making the defense fleet zero threat as long as you are willing to do nothing but evade (much like a cloaked ship is). Cloaks are an offensive module, not a defensive one, allowing the attacker to evade the various early warning tools (including the blatantly overpowered local) long enough to get into position to launch an attack without the target immediately warping back to station.
Itâs really just another way of asking to be able to kill people who arenât in space with you.
No, itâs asking for there to be any meaningful risk to PvE farming. You and RMTers like you keep whining and crying and insisting that risk be minimized so you can farm without interference. We would have no problems not personally getting the kill if someone could do it, instead of the RMT botters being effectively 100% safe as they farm.
But youâve been told this already, so your posts here are nothing but feeble defenses of RMT botters.
This period apparently being defined as the rest of all time.
That is the problem. It is defensive because it prevents and and all aggression against the ship âLong Enoughâ (AKA Forever).
[quote=âMerin_Ryskin, post:3683, topic:4731â]
someone could do it,[/quote]
According to the killboards, someone can.
Only because local exists. Remove local and there will be no further need for long-term cloaking, if no target is immediately available the cloaked ship will either go somewhere else or log off.
That is the problem. It is defensive because it prevents and and all aggression against the ship âLong Enoughâ (AKA Forever).
Stop lying. The cloak does not prevent aggression against an active player because the ability to warp between safespots has already 100% prevented all aggression. What the cloak prevents is the ability to see where the cloaked threat is at all times and warp out before it can make any attack.
The only time a cloak is necessary for defense is AFK cloaking, and AFK cloaking only exists because local is overpowered. Remove local and AFK cloaking will disappear naturally.
According to the killboards, someone can.
People also fly drunk and lose ships to NPCs. That doesnât mean that NPCs are a meaningful threat to a competent player.
So why isnât that enough? Why canât a cloaked ship endure a bit of risk to itself?
Did you even read the post you quoted? If you want risk to the cloaked ship then you have to completely change the warping and probe mechanics so that so that a ship canât warp between safespots faster than anything can pursue it. What you are lobbying for, once again, is a situation where the cloaked ship is still 100% safe but the RMT botters and renter trash have increased safety.
with effort, not by default
With a trivial amount of effort and essentially zero risk of failure unless youâre flying drunk and forget to click âwarpâ. By your terrible argument here cloaking safety is ok because it takes effort to activate the cloak.
Problem with cloak is the âForever afterâ part.
Cloaking is unlimited without further input.
Warping around only lasts as long as you keep doing it, and with enough effort could be caught. People fall into patterns, people make mistakes.
Cloaking is only âforever afterâ because local exists. Therefore remove local and the problem goes away.
1 Like
Really? I had no idea cloaks shut off on their own in wormhole space.
You will, however, notice that it isnât the wormhole players that are here complaining about cloaks. Itâs about RMTers and renter trash in nullsec complaining that cloaks make their farming too difficult.
2 Likes
Actually it has happened that a wormholer complained, but thatâs beside the point.
You yourself have already demonstrated that Local isnât the problem. You freak out about how it gets even worse if we remove local from the equation and give cloakers what they whine about incessantly, but with the cost that effort reveals them.
Anything that makes cloaks not be âforever afterâ is, according to you, somehow just handing over space to farmers with no way to put them in jeopardy. This is obviously false, or they would not dock when hostiles arrive.
The logic cuts both ways. If someone not doing anything is OK, then itâs OK that farmers stay in their stations while you are there and only come out when you are gone. If they must be at risk while in space, so do you.
What you are saying is that itâs so vitally important that farmers die that it is the number one balance point, and all other balance is put aside in itâs favor, regardless of any other circumstance. No amount of effort should be able to clear space, even inactivity is to trump active defensive efforts.
No, I point out that your idea for doing so is stupid. This is the argument youâre trying to have:
Me: local is broken, fix local.
You: remove local, but I get to punch you in the face.
Me: no, thatâs a terrible idea.
You: SEE YOUR FREAKING OUT I WIN.
Anything that makes cloaks not be âforever afterâ is, according to you, somehow just handing over space to farmers with no way to put them in jeopardy. This is obviously false, or they would not dock when hostiles arrive.
Thatâs another stupid argument from you. Being forced to dock when hostiles arrive is not danger, because it is almost 100% guaranteed that they will dock successfully. It is merely a temporary pause in farming, and you want to minimize even that temporary pause by making local even more accurate as a warning that an active threat is present.
If someone not doing anything is OK, then itâs OK that farmers stay in their stations while you are there and only come out when you are gone.
It is fine that they dock and are safe while docked. It is not safe for them to have 100% accurate instant warning that a threat is present so they can dock with a negligible chance of being caught, and then 100% accurate instant notification that a threat has gone AFK and it is now safe to undock and resume farming.
No amount of effort should be able to clear space, even inactivity is to trump active defensive efforts
Stop lying. Space can be cleared by putting up a strong PvP presence at all times. There is still a name in local, but the actual farming locations in the system are secured from attack. But we all know that you hate PvP, refuse to participate in it, and donât consider âhave a strong PvP presenceâ to be an acceptable solution.