The main problem with cloaky camping is, that it’s a disruptive influence accross the system/constellation that doesn’t come with any inherenct cost whatsoever.
No matter if the cloaky is AFK or not, you have to account for that when doing business in the system. Even if you would have no local, this still wouldn’t change (since you would need to have somebody sitting on gates which will eventually spot a cloaky).
As a result, business in that space requires more effort (either by slapping PvP-fits on there, or preparing for the worst of the worst, which is no undock at all). Now, I don’t want to make a case against or for it, but the fact that you can have an influence on others (no matter how small it is) while being afk, doesn’t seem right for the game. In essence, AFK cloaking is psychological warfare without risk. You will always impact decisions made, either by changing ships or by logoffskis).
The same is true for logoffs in hostile space, but I don’t see any fix for that, at all.
I also don’t think (anymore) that local should be pulled into this argument. Local benefits both sides and if one wants to use it to get to savety, that’s perfectly fine. PvP is not only killing ships, it’s also avoiding getting killed.
If one doesn’t want to commit to PvP, that’s also his free choice and eve allows you to make these choices. That is not what PvP’ers want, obviously, but denying someone a kill is also PvP and the PvPer can make an effort to try and force them into PvP, in worst case: by attacking their stations and evicting them. Once the stations are gone, this will ultimately become THE tool to do it.
Removing local (which has been abused as intel tool) also has it’s fair share of problems. Risk/effort vs Reward for 0.0 PvE would change for the worse (more risk, less reward) substantially. As anoms are completely visible and warpable to everyone, doing PvE would mean becoming a sitting duck ready to be shot at with subpar tools to protect yourself (cause PvE fits are, for the majority, exactly that).
It also opens the question if PvE in 0.0 is properly balanced in risk vs reward and, indirectly, if players should have the option to make their space more save (cause the reality is: 0.0 is decently save because players work for it).
This essentially means that PvE in 0.0 would have to be severely rebalanced at the same time. Making PvE worse is also a very questionable business move, as it’s a) absolutely necessary for the game and b) an activity enjoyed by many, evident by numbers (isk generation by PvE).
At this point, you have two options. Either increase ISK from sites, or require scanning for them. The first one, given the current isk-faucet situation, is problematic.
The other one is problematic too. It would require Hunters to fit Probes on every single ship. This essentially means every ship would have to have room for it. Major rebalance inc.
…
I wouldn’t know how to tackle all the issues that would arise from changes made. I don’t have answers to all of that.
Oh and, last but not least: The majority of the intel from local comes from players being in the system. Local makes it only effortless (just wanted to point that out). Question is: is it reasonable to make this a more effort thing (more effort should yield better rewards, shouldn’t it, so what’s in it for the defenders? How would they benefit from it?).
I also think this should be taken into consideration when talking about modules/structures against cloaking.
Ofc, you could make an argument that it could potentially be healther for the game to just blanket nerf 0.0, and there is certain evidence that this might indeed be good. The more elegant solution (imho) would be a steady and big ISK Faucet, cause a blanket nerf severe enough to tackle all the issues would drive people out of 0.0, back into HS and ultimately into the insanity that is carebearing in HS. Aka: Quit Eve.
Aka stop pretending that you have any other interest than to be toxic in here.
