Noone has a problem with cloaks, the problem is with AFK.
Dont start this again. I agree that local is the best intel tool we can ever have but afk cloaking is not the answer to it, especially the AFK part, because you dont counter and cant counter local. I wasnt talking about the rats as a risk(dreads 1shotting smaller pve ships anyways, so it is a huge risk to them), while they ARE risk, but you can optimize your fit to tank them easily, just like you optimize your fit to fight against real player ships.
I was ratting in my carrier, just finished my site and began warping to the next one when a new sig popped up and it was a wh, a smaller fleet came throught it. When i landed they were already at the sanctum. I killed 1 sabre and a few moments later a fleet arrived and helped me to finish the rest of reds, but i would have been a nice killmail for them if our standing fleet reacts later, so i was lucky. Local was blue, according to intel there was no reds around my system, still i was at riskā¦
Again, why? According to CCP, being cloaked in a safe spot is the same as being in a station.
(8 Golden Rules for EVE Online - EVE New Citizens Q&A - EVE Online Forums)
Youāve been arguing this for years, so youāve obviously given it some thought. Why do you want to change the āgolden rules of EVEā so that being cloaked in space isnāt safe? Iām just asking you to explain why you have the view you have.
1 Like
Golden Rules arenāt written by CCP.
This has been gone over before. Sure itās good advice from a knowledgeable player, but itās not doctrine or a design document from CCP.
At best itās a statement of what is, not what should be.
The post I quoted was by a CCP dev, and is how the game mechanics are designed to work in the current doctrine by CCP.
Youāre right. It IS a statement of the current state. Currently, itās acceptable to say you are safe 100% of the time while cloaked in a safespot. If you want to change the current state, please given a reason why.
So again, WHY should someone not be safe when cloaked in a safe spot?
1 Like
Seems to me if you are upset about cloaking you should be far more upset about a mechanic that lets players move trillions of ISK around while their cyno pilot is AFK.
Compare this to a cloaking ship that is at a safe with the pilot AFK. At most he can prevent someone from using that system in terms of ratting or miningā¦but he canāt prevent them from using the system next door, or doing something in that system in station, or even PI.
There is nearly a permanent cyno on every keepstar in Delve. Why do you think Delve is an economic power center, this is one of the reasons.
Actually, it also shows, IMO, why you are wrong here overall. With people using their space this intensively they have little to worry about when it comes to campers.
And buff ratting and mining? You do know that will have an effect beyond what you are recommending, righ? Shall we nerf anomalies too? This one is quite amusing. CCP rarely hands out a buff (nerfing cloaks is a buff to ratting and mining) without also a nerf. Look at the freighter revamp. Everyone belly ached for modules. Finally they got themā¦with a commensurate nerf to their cargo hold. So if you wanted to get back to your huge cargo space you had to make your freighter even more vulnerable to ganking. Personally, Iād have a good solid laugh if CCP implemented your idea and then simply chopped rat bounties by 20% across the board in NS. OMG, the salt would be epic. Weād all have to start taking blood pressure meds.
Or we could revamp how intel is done in NS and remove the very mechanics that causes for AFK camping (no not cloaks) while at the same time making cloaks detectable if they stay in one spot too long to add an extra incentive not to AFK cloak.
Tbh i would say yes to nerfing ratting! In my opinion nerfing bounties is not the right answer because smaller ships do not earn that much, but locking capital ships out of animalies seems like a good idea. As a carrier pilot i can say that you can make alot of money ratting with a carrier, alot more than i would actually need so i think it is āoverpoweredā, but then it would be a nerf to cloaky pilots too, because they would have less and less valuable targets, which is bad too. Look i dont care about active hunters, i dont have anything against cloaks only that thing you can annoy and waste other peopleās time when they try to bait or hunt you while you are not even there.
If you are dying to cloaking ships in a carrier you are kind of bad, IMO. You should be part of a standing fleet and have a cyno fit. And when the fit hits the shan, you scream on comms and light the cyno. In comes the nearby ratting carriers, supers, and the fax that are sitting on the keepstar tethered (Hi @Mike_Voidstar) and even maybe a sub-capital response fleet as well.
I know. I just prefer letting the game be more open than that. That allows for this kind of thing where you have to actually put in some effort to get an idea of what another player is doing. I see this kind of uncertainty as a feature, not a bug.
@discobot fortune afk cloakers to rule the world?
Reply hazy try again
I havent lost a single ratting ship to reds because i know what im doing(plus luck is on my side, always haha 
) and if things go ā ā ā ā i can call the standing fleet if needed. I dont understand why you saying this to me and quoting my post.
Most people have limited play time and it is bad for both the game and thoose people if an afk player wastes their time, because you must always think the camper is active otherwise you will have some problems.
I was using the indefinite youā¦so not you specifically. If people die to cloaking ships in a carrierā¦they kind of deserve itā¦not unlike the ding-a-ling you puts 5.68 billion ISK in a charon with expanders and sets course through Uedamaā¦the should change their ship name to āGankship Lollipopā.
I donāt think it needs to take that long, IMO. Sitting there an mining all day may not be the most efficacious way to determine if a guy is thereā¦nor is it the only one. I see EVE as a complex adaptive system with players who are heterogeneous and they can try different strategies when they are confronted with the same problem. Some turtle up. Some might try to bait with a mining ship and a fleet on standby somewhere. Another might be to use an industrial going in and out of the system several times. Gates are a great place to catch an industrial. And if you want to determine if he is simply ATKā¦maybe have that standby fleet not form. Because he is going to be using different strategies too. For example, he might have a spy or a traitor in your corp/alliance who is feeding him intel thus negating your baiting attempt with a fleet on standby. You can even mix strategies such as looking at the guys killboard to see whatās what. When does he tend to get most kills. Who does he kill with. Etc.
And they do all theese only to find out the guy is afk but pve is still not recommended because you never know when he comes back and they realise they tried to bait an afk player for a hour, but now they have to go to work or something. Nobody has the right to play with other peopleās time imo.
I am also going to disagree with the notion that we want ships to be āat risk while in spaceā. Risk is manageable. Managing risk is like a slightly more advanced version of running a mission. Once you have the relevant information it really isnāt a problem.
What I want is for ships in space to face uncertainty. Problem is local. It lets ships reduce their āproblemā to risk management vs. dealing with uncertainty. And while AFK claoking is not the best way to do it, IMO, it does inject some degree of uncertainty into the game for the ratter/miner.
Yesā¦and that uncertainty is awesome! Itās a feature, not a bug.
And we all play with other peopleās time. The Goon phrase, āWe arenāt here to ruin the game, we are here to ruin your game.ā Epitomizes this notionā¦and itās fantastic.
FYI, for the dictionary dopes, yes Iām drawing a distinction between risk and uncertainty. If you look at the literature on investment there is indeed such a distinction that may not be captured by the dictionary.
Deleting local would lead to different problems. Every system would need 3-5 or even more people dscanning and watching gates 23/7 which sounds very boringā¦ it would make holding a space almost pointless. Please donāt forget that this is a game, not a job to do things what we dont really want. Most people are playing to relax and have some fun.
I have not advocated simply deleting local. I want to remove local if and only if there is a replacement option and make it possible to find cloaks (preferably with that replacement option (I want there to be trade offs, find cloaked ships, but I have to give up something else).
Okay, this sounds kind of off topic, but Iāll bring it back to the topic.
We have heterogeneous players. They can play different strategies in buying stocks. Some strategies look at market valueāi.e. the traditional approach (or in the literature what is called the rational expectations approach). You expect the price of a stock to go up if the firm in question adds value (and the price to go down if the value goes down). Other strategies are based on what is called technical trading (you use all kinds of statistical models) to determine what to buy and donāt pay attention to the traditional stuff. And players evaluate and change strategies over time too. Further, the stock marketās behavior in aggregate is determined by the playerās behavior.
Now, if players update and change their strategies slowly we get a really boring outcome. We get the ārational expectationsā outcome. Trading volume is low. Volatility is low. People all hold exactly the same amount of shares and it isā¦āboringā. Technical trading is pointless. Everybody does the same damn thing.
If players update strategies more quickly then you see technical trading and there is a multitude of strategies. You get bubbles and crashes. Trading volume is high, volatility is high (relative to the rational expectations). Things are not boring.
I see the game the same way. If we create an environment where players can update and change strategies quickly it will keep the game interesting and exciting. If we create an environment where everyone converges to the same strategy then we get boringā¦stagnation.
I donāt see boring and stagnant as a good thing for the long term viability of this game with the kind of players it tends to draw. My guess is those players will get bored and leave.
And yes, we donāt want to turn it into a job. So we have to be careful of that too. But we donāt want boring and predictableā¦and when we have CCP do things for us my concern is it will lead to boring and predictable, the elimination of uncertainty. And yes we donāt want too much uncertainty either.
And if players work at reducing their uncertainty, Iām fine with that too. Iām fine with players doing things like that. Iām less fine with CCP doing it for us.
Now you can disagree with this, but then we just have a fundamental disagreement.
Ok lets say local is deleted and you can probe down cloaked ships now. It would buff active cloaky hunters ALOT, nerf and most likely completely delete afk cloaky campers and nerf sov holders to a point where it is almost pointless to hold a sov. It would make countless hours of planning, organising, fighting and farming to fund pvp worthless. If you delete local, you need to change sov system, probing, ratting, wardec system and alot more things that i cannot think of now because of tiredness. It would create a whole new game, which could be interesting, but ccp cant do this i think.
1 Like
That is not at all what I had in mind. The observatory array is going to be a new structure that youāll be able to fit modules too. At the same time local might go delayed like in worm holes. So with the observatory array youād be able to claw back certain aspects of local. In some ways it might be better, on others not. For example to find cloaked ships maybe you have to give up seeing who exactly is in local. Further, the structure should be vulnerable to attack, preferably more vulnerable than many current structures like citadels and TCUs.
In this we agree.
I still donāt think it will change the actual dynamics. No one will PvE without an active observatory. I give it a week before this exact thread in the opposite direction begins.
You play an online game and then complain about other players being there. 
Plenty of people will. Thereās no shortage of morons around and then thereās also players competent enough to deal with there being no local. The stupid people that are already dying because they canāt watch local will continue to die, because theyāre just that stupid. For everyone else? Nothing will really change. Most of the failures that have no business being anywhere near nullsec will leave, but thatās a win in my book. And it will also hamper botters, which is another win.
Not going to happen. You know why? Because we arenāt sheep. Weāre using our brains to achieve our goals, whereas all you do is whine on the forums about how thinking is so hard. Just because youāre utterly incompetent doesnāt mean everyone else is too.
1 Like