No one is going to drop a swarm of stealthbombers, recons and t3s for a venture or other single mining ship. If they do, call for help from your alliance. There's a chance you might lose your mining ship, but your alliance will inflict much larger damage on them and they'll think twice before targeting it's members again. If your alliance wont back you up in that situation then find a better alliance.



The hypocrisy here is astounding. These threads are by definition asking for the game mechanics to be changed to suit certain people (because they refuse to adapt to nullsec conditions), and to remove other peoples playstyles (ie camping a system or hotdropping). To complain when someone opposes that change, and instead suggests other possible "solutions" is simply disgusting.

Also consider this - your whole point is based on a huge logical flaw -
AFK ships can't do anything, since they're AFK.
So what actually bothers you, is the uncertainty, right? Close your local channel window and you should be just fine.

Actually almost NONE of the threads on this topic offer actual compromise, because actual compromise would mean maintaining the uncertainty and risk in nullsec, and most of these threads are little more than veiled attempts to remove such uncertainty and risk. Compromises, by definition, would require massively reworking local - the majority of people who make these complaints resist that though.

Discussing local is not a crutch, local is the direct root cause of the playstyles we're discussing. How can we hope to have a meaningful, informed discussion on certain mechanics and emergent gameplay without discussing the things that directly cause them?

I understand that local is used by both locals and the 'foreigners' to the system, and both pve and pvpers alike. The point I'm making though is that the interplay between local, cloaks and cynos balance each other. You can't change one without changing the other - that is where the compromise comes in. I thought you were willing to compromise?

This blew my mind with the extreme expectations of what should be seen as acceptable gameplay in null in general.



Maybe you like the idea of a ratting carrier. But if you are not in an alliance with a blue donut big enough to preclude hostile presence, it is often enough an awful idea.

A carrier used for ratting can be justified only if you can afford to lose it. That's your call, but don't expect the game to become safe for your convenience.

Rewards, ultimately, are limited by risk, or the economy tanks.
If risk is not enough to balance rewards, then the devs either roll back the rewards or increase the risk.

Local intel is a disaster for PvE in null, because it gives hostile outsiders all the information they need, while only upgrading local residents the difference between their intel channel and itself.
Need to find a pilot to hunt? Knowing they are in the system is OP for a hunter who would have otherwise left after a few minutes fruitless searching.
Instead of leaving for better hunting areas, they stay put because they see pilots in local. Cloaked at a belt, docked in a POS, or kicking back in an outpost, they are being flawlessly tracked.

And no amount of effort on the part of PvE can hide the presence from being handed to the hunter on a silver platter.

Bunk.

Its called advice.

And when you think about the people complaining about AFK cloaking aren't simply telling people how to play the game, they are outright prohibiting a type of play via the a game change...one that I an others have argued is unbalancing.

So, get off your frigging high horse.

As for local being broken, it is. For example, here is CCP Explorer:

https://twitter.com/erlendur/status/284995879482585088

There is this article as well:

http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/unbreaking-local/

And this one:

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

Local is a bad game mechanic

I read it, and I still don't see how it would fix anything other than kill pvp even more. Because if a gang comes in carebears dock up, if an afk cloaker is around you scan him down and kill him then go back to pve/carebearing. It breaks the system so entirely that carebears would literally be nearly invulnerable. 0.0 would become no better than highsec.

What part of Teckos' argument do you inherently disagree with? Because I see much more logic in his ideas, than in yours.

I apologise, but some of the things you've said have given certain impressions - such as claiming you couldn't escape if ratting in a carrier - which I then respond to.

If thats slightly off topic, or a tangent to what your main point is, then my bad.

Lets get back on topic, and back to the real deal: What is the issue with cloaked campers?

I maintain that this style of play fine - it is in balance with other mechanics such as local, and is currently something that is actually necessary in order to maintain the uncertainty and risk that is required in order for nullsec and the economy to function correctly. It cannot be changed unless other drastic changes are made to preserve the uncertainty and risk.

This isn't WoW.

Yes, I want to change local...like CCP explorer does as well

Actually we do have devs on record discussing local, and they pretty bluntly stated they want a better means of replacing the intel with effort based results, BEFORE changing it.

I suggest you read those post again. He has stated quite clearly, he'd prefer local to become a chat channel only.

Just helping you out Virgo...BTW, thought you were done responding to me.

And the AFK cloaker has paid for his ship, the modules, and riggs, and so forth. They have paid in terms of time getting in system.

You are quite simply flat out wrong here.