I think you know that, that is not a serious comeback m8.
And the rest of your points in the post, also honestly seems like you are trying to shift focus, they might be your opinions. But they are irrelevant to the core of the issue
In my opinion the… let’s call it “no changes” side’s argument is that there should be no way to really safe up a system for your activities, and be safe from PVP.
The logical fallacy there being that, that is exactly what cloaky campers have. They cloak up and all worries are over. And by your own logic, they should not have that.
An active player zipping around looking for the perfect time to drop cloak and call in the troops is fine, and would not be hindered, since it should take time to find them, and them moving around would ensure that they never would be.
But a camper who is afk could be found and dealt with, which i would call PVP, which is what you say i am advocating against ?
Why not? Is a 1000 man PvP fleet not good security? The point is that it is absolutely possible to secure your system, you just don’t like the fact that it requires significant effort and constant PvP activity. You want an easy way to make local more effective at allowing you to avoid PvP and be “secure” by docking any time a potential PvP threat is nearby.
The logical fallacy there being that, that is exactly what cloaky campers have.
Nope. It’s not at all the same. Renter trash and RMT botters can make billions of ISK per hour and still want more safety. An AFK cloaked ship is not earning ISK, not getting PvP kills, not gathering intel, etc. It’s just sitting there with its name in local. If you want a comparable level of safety I’d be fine with having a way to shut down all activity in exchange for being immune to attack. Oh wait, it already exists and you could just fit a cloak on your farming ship if you want to have what the AFK camper has.
But a camper who is afk could be found and dealt with, which i would call PVP, which is what you say i am advocating against ?
Do you honestly thin that the AFK player is going to stay logged in if they can be found and killed? Of course not. You will never get to engage any PvP targets, but removing the ability to keep a name in local while AFK would certainly make local more effective as a tool for avoiding PvP.
I can see the bot posters here are keeping their core loop of arguments for why their cloaking safe space should never in any way shape or form have any degree of danger added. How quaint.
Take a look at their posting history, you’ll find you aren’t far off. Be wary of the best use of your time.
Best I could do is give you a reasonably detailed summary. If you want more information, you’ll need to become a CCP employee.
Anyway, back to basics:
Cloaking devices should generate very minor amounts of heat, causing extended cloaking to carry the risk of disabling your mods and putting your ship at risk.
In this way, the hunters can have a chance to find the target, without introducing any changes in how an active player uses the cloaking device, aside from being unable to remain cloaked for an unlimited amount of time.
This change promotes being an active player in the game, not an inactive one. A simple change that only puts risk towards those who linger in space too long, an active player can easily avoid the issue (provided they do no run out of nanite paste)
It allows player agency and control over activites in space as well as putting a minor degree of risk in place which has a strong chance to generate some lossmails and content.
It stands to reason some ships, such as blackops, may need a heat reduction role bonus. This would be an excellent addition to a battleship in sore need of ways to increase it’s EHP under pressure.
There are more minor details required for this adjustment, but as always constructive feedback and not bot responses are welcome.
I see you’re back to building straw man arguments and failing to understand the difference between “any risk is unacceptable” and “your idea, which has been suggested by other people countless times already, sucks and you need to do better”.
So, you admit that you don’t have data. Unless you are under NDA and have access to CCP’s employee-only data, in which case you probably already breached your NDA by discussing it at all, you are free to post whatever “data” you have. Stop hiding behind all of these excuses and either post your data or admit that it doesn’t exist.
STOP LYING.
Nobody is going to stay logged in and face this risk. Nobody is going to become lossmails. The sole result will be that local is more effective as a tool for avoiding PvP.
So your entire suggestion is based on nothing more than your own perception and/or personal feelings, not any sort of data.
This isn’t a reason to disagree with your suggestion in and of itself, but misrepresenting your suggestion as being backed by data when it isn’t doesn’t help your case at all.
Because the only reason to stay logged in while AFK was to mitigate the local problem. No local, no more reason to AFK cloak instead of logging out until you come back.
