Keeping with my question, why is the cloaked ship entitled to effectively invincibility? What harm comes from being not 100% safe while being cloaked?
This one question is what I see answers to. The barely clever responses that try to ignore this question are just that.
I’m in lowsec. I see guy, he’s cloaked. Why is my being unable to engage in open space impossible?
As a solution to making cloaking more dangerous? It seems odd to suggest this, as it cannot be used offensively in this case.
Furthermore, such a setup would be exceedingly easy to evade by having, say, 10 personal bookmarks or even randomly selecting 10 places to warp while having a very small ship and lots of sensor strength to keep probing you down difficult. Also your suggestion doesn’t allow it’s use in WH space, lowsec or highsec.
You just defined waiting. This is counter to actively playing the game.
Say my lowsec group has a moon out and we don’t get to play but for 2-5 hours a day on average.
Why can we not try to actively hunt and remove a suspected threat in our space? Doesn’t this force people into paths that aren’t healthy for the playerbase?
Options that both delay your appearance in local have been suggested elsewhere, however purely turning off local is an interesting option.
If this used the local systems local communication beacon or whatever to pinpoint the cloaked ships, you could argue it disables or scrambles local while using the communication system to show the locations of ships on the overview.
Would it be necessary to have this effect also scramble warp for ships that are decloaked, for maybe a minute or 30 seconds? They could just simply warp away, or constantly warp to avoid danger, and such a thing could be easily programed by someone with a setup far more difficult to catch than a simple botter’s inputs.
This is an interesting idea, but then again I’m still looking for feedback on: Why is cloaking denying player risk while out in space a good thing, especially with so many changes made to eve to increase risk in recent years.
Keeping with your question, if they were docked in an NPC station, would they not be just as invincible? Should we nuke all the NPC stations, so that people can’t be safe there either? There’s certainly much more opportunity within a station than there is cloaked in space.
And the ship isn’t entitled to invincibility. The ship is making a fitting sacrifice to help avoid detection, not be immune to anything. That’s not a superficial difference. To be invincible, it would need to be immune to your attacks. All it is, is invisible.
You can hunt. You aren’t entitled to succeed. And as I asked previously, why do you call it your space? Even if you put your corp ticker on it, it’s still not yours.
If you can actively hunt a cloakers, you can remove cloakers from the system (or at least ascertain their activity) until there is zero cloakers left and you know you are 100% safe or you know the cloaker is active and a present threat.
This is simply unacceptable. You should not know whether your 100% safe nor if the cloaker is presently a threat. It must be an unknown, or there is no risk for the bears.
The only solution is to change local so that you cannot get 100% accurate intel from it. Or you must continue with the status quo as we have now for years.
Currently it is unhealthy for a tiny amount of players. Very very few players are affected by afk cloaking.
If however we allow null bears more safety, their effects are felt throughout the entire game. The economy is already failing under the sheer magnitude of rorqual mining and carrier ratting. It’s already too safe.
The entire game not going to ■■■■ is the lesser evil when compared to a tiny subset of players that cry at the site of an unknown in local.
Why is an uncloaked ship warping between safespots entitled to effective invincibility? There should be a remote warp disruptor that lets you click on a player name in local and pin their ship in place so you can go kill it.
Oh wait, that’s the insane warp disrupting scan probe idea you posted.
Great, so you know which 2-5 hours a day you need to organize a defense fleet. Get on during that time, get people in PvP ships, and do your moon mining while the PvP fleet protects the mining operation. It sounds like the real problem is that you don’t have the strength to successfully claim and defend your territory, but you want to be given it anyway.
Hey, I’m not sure what to make of your message. Receiving a hugemixed bag of signals from your post. To make sure I properly understand what you’re trying to say, I have to ask:
Are you saying that the RMTing renting trash, who doesn’t deserve the space they’re in. would be too safe without afk cloakers disrupting them?
The guy is either ignorant or wilfully ignoring the sheer amount of minerals and isk null sec dumps into the economy, and is again either ignorant or wilfully ignoring how the removal of afk cloaking will make it even worse.
I’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it a thousand more;
Ain’t ■■■■ happening to cloaks until we do something to local.
as long as inflation of goods equals inflation of ISK, prices are stable + growing market and this is what matters for economics…
this said and to put some fuel into the fire I´ll add, that ore production suffers more from cloaky afk campers than ISK production and the resulting imbalance leads to the ISK inflation everyone is so concerned about…
PLEX btw has nothing to do with the ingame market, cause you can´t produce it ingame and so it´s natural, that it gets more and more expensive as the game gets older (as long as the market is continuously growing)
Plex is created by players and has all the normal supply/demand rules. It’s presence on the market means that it is subject to inflation like any other item. That’s not the same as saying inflation is the only driving force behind plex prices.
I am undocked and want to look for and shoot a cloaked ship in my lowsec system.
I cannot, due to game mechanics. Therefore I have a player out in space that is perfectly safe and at no risk.
This player simply gets to a personal bookmark, aligns to a random spot in space and goes afk for an undetermined amount of time, while efforts to deny safety to exit the system only encourage players to wait for something to possibly happen.
In all other instances, a player is in danger, be it docked in player station or out in space. Only being docked in an NPC station provides greater safety.
Why is there no method to engage or locate said cloaked ship, and why is that good for the game?
Answers related to botting and RMT will not be accepted, players are not CCPs police force. We are assuming botting and RMT are resolved for purposes of this question.
I am undocked and want to look for and shoot a ship that is constantly warping between safespots. I cannot, due to game mechanics. Therefore I have a player out in space that is perfectly safe and at no risk.
Conclusion: I need a remote warp disruptor that lets me click a player’s name in local and apply a 50-point warp disruption effect (because WCS are cheating) to their ship.
Why is there no method to engage or locate said cloaked ship, and why is that good for the game?
You have been given the answer to this multiple times: because all proposals to engage the cloaked ship come with unacceptable consequences. It is not an absolute rule that a cloaked ship must be impossible to engage, but you need to come up with a better proposal than everyone else who has tried. And it’s going to start with removing local.
We are assuming botting and RMT are resolved for purposes of this question.
IOW, “I’m going to lobby for a buff to RMT botting but you’re not allowed to point out this fact.”
Not sur if its the place place to put it but, heres the idea:
Not proposing fix for this, its in the interest of ccp to have player losing ships so they stay longer on the game, however, it could be interesting to propose something similar to an automatic de-cloak.
The de-cloack would maybe happen from 3 hours to 4 hours from clicking the cloak, which would be a window of 1 hour of randomness de-cloak.
Wont fix anything, just giving more work for the ones using many alts. Not to forget that some players might lose interest in the game if they cant do anything with campers around, because afterall, they paying for sub, as much as campers paying too maybe so the unfairness needs to be even out.
Risk aversion is not unfairness. If a player can’t do anything with an AFK cloaked ship in the system it’s because they and/or their alliance are weak and have failed at living in nullsec. The response to that is for them to continue failing until they either become strong enough to succeed or give up and go back to highsec. It is absolutely not to make changes to pander to weak players and help them “succeed”.
