We’ll see. Very little info on their design has been released. And what has been was vague concepts at best.
You may be able to spam them to make it a right pain to get rid of local.
Doesn’t matter either way. Nullbears will still have to put up with cloaky campers AND also have to be defending or setting up observatories 24/7. Or they could, you know, just grow a pair, undock, and not be scared shitless of a name in local…
1 Like
i know that - but the ccp logic behind whats an exploit and whats not is crossed when it comes to that
if any action that generates some kind of gain for a person or entity is an exploit then… they need to clarify the logic of whats acceptable
and for miners - they have to unload their stuff - they are there to do that much atleast - or they are botting and should b banned…
the leading theory of observatory arrays is that the more in a system the more effective they are - and most (if not all except for MTU’s) long term anchored structures go into a re-enforced mode - these will probably be no different…
and dont get it twisted - im not scared of a stand up fight no decent eve player is… and i’m not scared of a name in local, no one is… its the cyno hes carrying and the 50 asshats behind him waiting for that cyno to light that might spook me - or anyone - a tiny bit…
But apparently im in a response tree with perfect killboard gods who have never suffered losses to hotdrops at the hands of a cloaky camper?
It may have once been unclear a long time ago. But since then, the situation was looked at and an unambiguous ruling given…
Edit- and I’ll point out that ccp keep that ‘exploit and not an exploit’ list up to date.
And everynow and then you’ll see ccp chime in on afk cloaking. And every time, every single time, it is not only declared to be just fine but they might even remind you how ‘cloaked ships do very little dps’.
2 Likes
Such extreme statements as “all they want to do is rat and mine in perfect safety” make no sense and degrade what ever value there is to the rest of your arguments. We all know that there’s considerable threats from playing PVP–in fact outside of Roqs there’s probably far more ships killed by NS and WH gangs than anything else; and of course CCP has done a reasonable job of ramping up the PVE threat the past couple years as well. And no one here is arguing for perfect safety, nor wants it.
“Why aren’t the anti-AFK cloak crowd crying out to simply not allow a cloak and cyno to be mounted at the same time?”
That you ask this question and people aren’t asking for it means you don’t understand the issue. Yes no one is asking because it’s unrelated to the problem of representing a threat across regions for merely logging in. Hot drops are a huge bit of fun for game from either side-- simply paying a month to log in once a day and affect other players for the rest of the day, day after day, for a month for essentially doing nothing isn’t.
I’m right at the end of the thread and without lookin’ I wanna ask: Is there still the same clown around, or is there a new one doing the same boring ass tricks just like all the other clowns? Ya know, i’m thinkin’ maybe we should make bets about this.
Just a little bit of extra fire on the long-dead horse. I don’t think it matters what people do while they are cloaked. Spooking locals, hiding from hostiles, taking a few to take a pee, whatever. What does bother me is this module use no capacitor. What does this run on, unicorn farts?
It diverts power from every other system on board, hence not being ablt to target, shoot weapons, warp, rep etcetc. It’s literally a self balancing module.
Different clowns, but the same “totally new and never proposed before” ideas we’ve heard for the past 12 years. I think they’re under the impression that if they repeat a lie just often enough, it’ll become the truth eventually.
Our engines must really screw up your sleep cycles
In which we see the claim…
“I don’t want to nerf cloaks, but I want more interesting game play by…nerfing cloaks.”
1 Like
I think 3 will be problematic in that even though they blew up the initial OA, if the cloaked ships are not being watched and a new OA is put the cloaked ships will become vulnerable.
I guess it will depend on how long OA will take to anchor, it could rapidly turn onto a game of OA whack-a-mole
Is there any annoucements from CCP about that subject ?
…
What’s this fixation on activity? You are allowed to walk away from the keyboard once and a while. A large fraction of people docked up aren’t paying very close, or even any, attention to their game client. Some are even, shockingly, AFK.
Cloaking devices offer a way to do the same for people deep in hostile space.
How is it more interesting to nerf cloaks so they can’t be used for that purpose? It just results in people being unable to venture out from their home unless they can guarantee no interruptions and a long play session.
And what would be the benefit? There would be no interesting gameplay as if cloaks were nerfed, as the AFK cloaker would have to log out (or wouldn’t be there in the first place). All that would happen is ratting and mining in nullsec would be made even safer. And this doesn’t even consider the other uses of cloaks besides messing with nullsec grinders who rely on local as their primary defence.
AFK cloaking is fine just like AFK sitting in a station in fine. You are gaining nothing. Could there be more interesting gameplay around the mechanic of messing with the intel provided by local chat? Of course there could be. But I don’t get this argument that nerfing cloaks would somehow produce more interesting gameplay - it would just make the game safer and less interesting. AFK cloakers would go away and nullsec bots/grinders would be at even less risk than they already are.
Go back to the drawing board and come up with a better idea to make hunting nullsec PvErs better than “nerf cloaks”. For each idea, ask yourself, “would this make nullsec ratting/mining safer?” If the answer is yes, crumple that sheet of paper up, toss it in the bin, and start again.
3 Likes
Ya know what’d fix afk cloaking? Banning renters.
2 Likes
Thanks for making my point…I doubt you’ll see it, but there it is. Your suggestions, whether you believe it or not, nerf cloaks. You just hide it behind the guise of “more interesting game play”. Thing is I can say the same about simply deleting local. It will give us more interesting game play…lots of people won’t like it, but hey who cares.
Further, your problem is that for those using a cloak actively…game play is already interesting. You are trying to get through a gate camp with 1.2 billion in your cargo hold. You are trying to break out of a heavily camped system. You are setting up a bombing run. Etc. You presume that you are helping such players when in actuality you are hindering them.
And I’ll build on Black Pedro’s point above, some people even make ISK while they are not logged in! I know, the horror right? No. Working as intended. So if people can make ISK (or acquire resources) while not logged in…why is it a big deal if a player who is logged in and acquiring neither ISK nor resources is safe while cloaked at a safespot? Because it gives you the willies? HTFU, this is EVE after all.
Maybe…
My guess is part of it will depend on the group putting up the OA. If they’ll fight for it they may do well. But if they are renters who cower behind the skirts of others…they may not fair so well.