Ah, but there’s the rub. Not all ships use cap boosters OR they would be forced to use one whereas they would not have used one before. Thus they incur an opportunity cost - they forfeit what they could have used instead (shields, EWAR, precision mods, etc) just to use a booster. This is particularly challenging for shield-tanks and EWAR ships.
Also: cap boosters take up A LOT of cargohold space
I was trying to be sarcastic about the 1/3 thing. My bad.
Didn’t mean to snip out of context, and I realize it was said “partially in jest”. As was my answer. Except for the chips in brains part.
A big reason I occasionally roam NS is the ability to hunt relics in peace without constantly mashing d-scan. It’s like a vacation to the beach
My point is there is already a penalty. How much of a penalty do you need to feel safe?
All good
And I liked the chip thing as a lore reason. I also agree with your sentiment. I have spent more time defensively cloaked than the other way around.
Same here. Plus I can let out the dogs without worrying about getting podded
I have zero problem with cloaky camping or AFK cloaking. I’m not one of the ones complaining or suggesting it needs to be addressed because I don’t see it to be a problem; however, I do believe it would make PVP more interesting if those decloaking start off with a moderate disadvantage to counterbalance the element of surprise (this disadvantage would be lower-to-none for blops and caps so they can still jump to cynos).
EDIT: I’m talking about non-covert cloaks for use by non-covert ships. I think covert cloaks are fine as-is.
My point is there already is a moderate penalty. Anyone awake enough in a potentially dangerous place should have a decent chance to GTFO or launch a counter attack.
I’ve jumped plenty of explorers who have been on the ball and get away before I can even start targeting. My Astero can lock pretty quick, but I’m not going to be jumping anything big with that. My Stratios can go for bigger targets, but the lock time is sooo much slower.
If you are awake you have a chance. I don’t think the cloak tilts the scale in my direction so much that it requires even more of a penalty
But they already do. Every ship that can fit a cloak is worse in stats when compared to the equivalent non-cloaking ship. A combat recon or HAC will trash a force recon, an AF or interceptor will trash a covert ops frigate or bomber, etc. Why should there be even more disadvantages added?
I failed to specify: I’m talking about non-covert cloaks for non-covert ships (possibly excluding Blops). I’m not talking about covert cloaks - I think those are fine TBH.
But in that case you already have an even larger disadvantage from fitting one. You take a lock time penalty just for fitting it, you spend a valuable high slot on a ship that wasn’t designed to have an extra one for the cloak, and you can’t warp while cloaked so it gives you essentially zero advantage in sneaking up on someone. The only things a non-covert cloak is good for are MWD + cloak escapes from gatecamps and being able to go AFK in a safespot without getting killed.
This ^^
She types faster 
All your points are valid; I was already aware of these considerations (esp. even-while-offline fitting penalties) which is why I’m not screaming from the bottom of my lungs that something needs to change, because I do not believe there is a necessity here. I believe it would enhance PVP, not that it is a problem in need of solving. I’ve already stated I do not feel it is a problem.
It can be used in camping. If you spring the trap, you would be cap-depleted on decloak.
Again, not something that must change. There is no problem here - I acknowledge that. I see this as status quo = good vs cap depletion = better, but we can live without.
And the reactivation time for non-Cov Ops cloaks is 30 seconds. In that time you should be able to defend yourself. Someone is only going to be able to surprise you if they just so happen to be sitting in the site you are running waiting for you to show up. Otherwise you should have plenty of warning to see them coming on d-scan.
Can you explain in more detail what scenario you’re thinking of here?
It figures that Archer would be on the side of penalizing cloaking somehow.
This I agree with
I’d amend this to "Status quo = fine vs cap depletion = a solution looking for a problem
As far as AFK camping in NS. I plan on cloaking up in a safe from now on when I have the chance, and walking away from my keyboard for as long as I can.
Just because.
Fly safe people o7
Logging out in nullsec is a dumb move. When you log out, you are vulnerable to being scanned down - at the very least somebody could dscan you and get a rough idea of where you are. Then, when you log back in, they can drop probes and find you.
It is much safer to just cloak up until downtime. If they dscan you when you log back in, they will get only a rough idea of where you are, based on a few seconds in warp, rather than 30+ seconds of sitting still.
I am legitimately shocked by how pissed off the locals get when I do this. Why would I log out unless I had to? The locals won’t give me docking rights to their citadels strewn throughout the system so expletive them.
That’s probably how afk cloaking started! 
LOGIC FROM AFK CLOAKY CAMPERS:
– RATTING WHILE AFK: no no it’s bad
– MINING WHILE AFK: no no it’s bad
– CLOAKY CAMPING WHILE AFK: yup no problem…