Even if we're talking about a cloaked ship warping to a bookmark they made earlier?

Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape.

Funny thing that... you actually don't have to fit a hauler for max cargo capacity... part of that whole "adapting" thing.

Exactly my point - this setup would allow cooperation between players to help hunt cloaks but would also give a reason to not go AFK. I mean, why is it that anyone should be able to be 100% safe while undocked for any reason? Even in a POS shield, they could, potentially, down the POS... if you're AFK long enough :)

Then they've earned the kill and hats off to them if they catch me with my pants down. It happens. It's an accepted risk. This is why my haulers in there for PI tend to be tanked and stabbed... gives me a fighting chance to escape.

You're failing to consider the ripple effects.

This set up breaks wormhole intel, which requires being able to remain undetected in a system.

You're failing to consider the ripple effects. You break another entire aspect of the game simply because you're afraid of the stranger in local.

And you're failing to read - I said you can simply make this not work in wormhole space via spatial distortion and what not

If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place.

If the system is bad enough that you need to build exceptions into it to try to prevent it from breaking things it's probably not worth implementing in the first place.

I've yet to see a good objection to just making cloaked ships unprobable when they're running silent/without any mods online.

Simple. You nerf the ship excessively. They're already unable to do anything while cloaked (save operate probes), now you'll make them unable to do anything when decloaking.

Not one person in this thread has proven anyone to be AFK and cloaking. Its a term made up to cover for the attempt at having safe PVE in dangerous areaas. Harden the **** up you pussies. You will not have safe pve in your alliance strongholds, not even if you make 20000 posts about it. On the other hand you are likely to lose local eventually as it is the biggest deterent to pvp actively happening in losec. So suffer you pathetic candyass trammies.

[...] You do not have a right to safety while generating ISK. You do have a right to safety if you aren't.

You are free to say whatever you want, the game is balanced around cloaking ships existing.

Two scenarios
Cloaky is a bomber
1. You are jewing in a belt
2. Bomber tackles you
3. You abandon any current drones and launch light drones
4. Laugh as he gets ripped apart

Cloaky is anything else
1. You are jewing in a belt
2. Cloaky decloaks
3. Warp off as he has 15 second delay until he can start target locking


I don't see anything wrong. If he has a cyno fit well only the bomber can insta tackle you and even then cyno jam the system or just get a free bomber kill anyway if you are going to die.

Third scenario:
1. You are jewing in a belt or anom
2. A bomber tackles you.
3. The rest of the gang uncloaks and rips you a new one.

Also, you realize how blackops cynos work, yes?

It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)

I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.

Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying.

Not in a sence I feel is correct. If it was only the cov-ops ships that could use the cloaks to full effect I wouldn't have any problem with it. The fact that any ship can have a cloak and see everything going on around it is not a good balance. If the ships could get a limit to their field of view then I wouldn't have had any problems with it either.

Third scenario:
1. You are jewing in a belt or anom
2. A bomber tackles you.
3. The rest of the gang uncloaks and rips you a new one.

Also, you realize how blackops cynos work, yes?

And if you are solo and they have a gang prepared with a solid gameplan, you should die. Simple as that.

It's not changing Lord Zim. There isn't going to be a fix that allows you to safely warp around nullsec in a multi billion dollar ship farming endlessly with minimal risk. You are Goonswarm. To hear this from one within a corp with the absolute best chance at forming defensive fleets is sad. (The unity of the Swarm is awe inspiring)

I honestly lose respect I have for Goonies when I find multiple posts from every page with this transparent approach and opinion. Someone from your corp needs to tell you to harden the **** up and come back to reality. You have no right to safety and that's that. It doesn't require proof or validation. So i'm not going to waste time doing so. If you want safety, leave the Swarm and go back to hisec.

Stating the obvious intended mechanics in a question phrased to imply it's not as it should be doesn't make for a solid argument. I mean that as respectfully as it can be made while at the same time telling you sternly to stop crying.

Sigh.

I've said this multiple times, I PVP in nullsec, my carebearing is in hisec because I judge the risk/reward to be much more conductive in hisec. I'm not arguing this for me, I'm arguing this for the carebears who are currently trying to make a living in nullsec, who will be the most affected by this. And when they're affected, so will the roamers because they'll have even fewer targets to choose from because the carebears who are less lazy than me will have moved their carebear alts to hisec as well.

Also, what I'm arguing isn't that there should be complete safety (there is none in nullsec, despite what many people will argue to get rid of local, it takes just a bit of inattentiveness at the wrong time to lose a ship, even if there are intel channels and local), what I'm arguing is that changes which will make the act of keeping even half the safety they have now take 10x as much work, without adding to the disadvantages the roamers/system campers have to endure, are unbalanced as ****. You'd go from the inhabitants having a slight advantage, to the roamers/system campers having a huge advantage.

If that many ships put in the effort and teamwork to locate you covertly, move into position and spring the trap... in nullsec... well, kudos to them. Tip your hat to a well executed trap, pull your next discount ratting ship (or covetor if you're mining) out of your pocket and try again later. You should not be invulnerable to that degree of concerted effort if you're out and about doing something like ratting or mining.