However your proposals don’t really address that. You don’t stop the cloaked ship from gathering intel (which they can do from safespots). You don’t mitigate hotdrops in a reasonable way, you simply prevent them from ever happening by giving ridiculous early warning. I guess you stop capitals from cloaking and hiding until they can arrange a jump out, but that’s a very small part of cloaking and easily dealt with by making it impossible to fit a cloak on a capital ship.
It just so happens, purely by coincidence, that the primary effect of your proposals only matters to AFK cloaking and the primary result is that RMT botting becomes safer and more profitable.
No, that just happens to be what you want to make out of it.
You know it would interfere in intel gathering, because the best they can do while warping around is check local. They won’t be able to determine if the people they see in local are in the station, forming up, or much of anything else except being there in the solar system. No probes, even DScan is going to be spotty with that tactic.
You have decided that it’s not reasonable to have hotdrops mitigated that way, because you are delusional to think that every single person in space is clicking Dscan every 5 seconds without fail at all times even after having been ‘alone’ in space for the last 5 hours. Bots maybe, but not people. Humans don’t work like that.
D-scan exists and can easily identify where people are. Try learning how to use it? As a hint on where to start, it’s called directional scan for a reason. If you’re in a ship with combat probes it’s even easier, as probes work just fine while warping.
You have decided that it’s not reasonable to have hotdrops mitigated that way, because you are delusional to think that every single person in space is clicking Dscan every 5 seconds without fail at all times even after having been ‘alone’ in space for the last 5 hours. Bots maybe, but not people. Humans don’t work like that.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of PvP. If you are in dangerous space where there is any chance of attack you hit d-scan as fast as it will cycle at all times. If local does not exist to warn of potential threats (and inform you that it’s safe to stop scanning) then “being in dangerous space” will be any time you are undocked in nullsec. Anyone dumb enough to not scan as fast as possible at all times deserves to lose their ship, which will inevitably happen. There is no such thing as being “alone” because anyone with any understanding of PvP would know that a threat can appear at any time. Even if it isn’t a cloaked ship it could be an interceptor that just jumped in. D-scan being clear for the previous five hours doesn’t mean it will be safe in the next five seconds.
A cloak does not make a ship 100% safe. That ship must be at a safe with the cloak active and doing nothing. Then that ship is 100% safe.
No deflection, just your usual nonsense.
Riiiight. How many times have you whined about cynos and that impossible fleet coming through and taking everything from you including your coffee maker?
That is the whole point of a cloak…you have an advantage of not being detected.
Aside from his goal of sitting at a safe and doing nothing from noting what is in local and on d-scan he isn’t safe.
So…no problem.
Yes Mike, it is the AFK cloaking…we all know it. You can stop the charade.
Or, you know, just harder to detect than normal. It does not need to be 100%.
Oh, so the fact that he’s hiding a capital ship from his own foolishness with several active hunters in system trying to bring him down is no problem? Didn’t we need more capitals exploding for the good of the economy?
The fact that he’s preparing a hotdrop 2001m away in total safety isn’t an issue? That somehow deserves to be 100% safe?
It’s not all about ISK. It does not matter what is being done under the cloak… all activities in EVE deserve to be opposed if someone can be bothered to ship up and get in space to oppose them. Being mechanically 100% safe while doing anything at all outside of a station with an active hunter in system is not OK.
EVE’s game engine does not support the things required for detection to be anything but binary 0% or 100%. There is no realistic way to make a ship harder to detect without making it 100% visible and making cloaks (and cloaking specialist ships) useless.
Sure there is. You can, for instance, make people look for you on Dscan instead of just announcing their presence to the world at large as soon as they enter the system.
You don’t have to have 0 or 100. You can make it harder without leaving it absolute one or the other.
Oh look, recons don’t show up on dscan at all… seems like they are at least somewhat stealthy even without a cloak.
You are just unimaginative, and not capable of rational or intelligent thought. You don’t argue with an honest intent to come to some compromise or solution, you just want to shoot down anything and everything that might endanger your nanny module that makes life easy for you.
They could make it require multiple ships, introduce mechanics that create false positives on probe results, make Dscan return results based not only on distance but sig size and ewar profiles… There’s plenty they could do if anyone was willing to discuss it. Someone like you, however, is not interested in discussion. Just a risk free playstyle at the expense of others’ work.
AKA “as soon as a cloaked ship comes within 14AU of me I immediately know it is there and can warp out to station”. That isn’t making cloaked ships harder to detect than normal but not 100%, it’s effectively making them 100% visible.
Oh look, recons don’t show up on dscan at all… seems like they are at least somewhat stealthy even without a cloak.
That role doesn’t help with moving around on-grid with a target, a role cloaked ships need to be capable of. And it directly contradicts your proposal to make cloaked ships appear on d-scan.
They could make it require multiple ships, introduce mechanics that create false positives on probe results, make Dscan return results based not only on distance but sig size and ewar profiles…
Now we’re back to you throwing out vague ideas without bothering to think through their consequences. For example, how does requiring multiple ships make a meaningful difference when everyone has alts? Changing d-scan to be less than 100% accurate might work in this specific situation, but what are the effects elsewhere in the game? Have you thought through any of these things, or are you just throwing out as many ideas as possible in the desperate hope that you might find one that sticks and gives you the RMT buff you want?
Just a risk free playstyle at the expense of others’ work.
This nonsense doesn’t become true just because you spammed it a million times. Cloaking is only risk-free against RMT bots and renter trash. Against competent players ruining their work requires decloaking and accepting considerable risk. So we have to ask ourselves why you are so stubborn in defending the “playstyle” of RMT bots?
I know it because reasonable “chance of detection” stealth gameplay depends on line of sight, and EVE’s game engine has no concept of line of sight (as stated by CCP). You need to be able to do things like forcing stealth ships to approach while using terrain to break line of sight, environment effects to decrease detection range, etc. But, much like guns shoot through asteroids as if they weren’t there, this can’t be done without a major rewrite of the game engine.
Now, your proposed “30 minutes of invisibility” plan doesn’t make detection any less binary. You’re still either detected or not, no match of skill vs. skill to see if you find the target (or can find it quickly enough). Before 30 minutes you’re invisible, after 30 minutes you’re spotted. This idea just buffs RMT botters by ensuring that they can only be camped for 30 minutes and can resume farming after that.
Merin lives in a universe where his way is the only way.
According to him, you can’t do stealth unless you do it like Assasin’s Creed or something, where the entire engine is built around a specific style of stealth gameplay.
It’s BS and a total smokescreen for what he really wants, which is risk free gameplay for him.
At every turn, as soon as you mention that a cloaked ship might actually have a chance at failing at its mission then you have completely negated every single possible use of the cloak in every situation, 100%, no matter how little sense it makes, how stupid it sounds, or impossible to fit into reality it would be.
Without the Nanny Module being 100% safe at the full discretion of the pilot using it, all of EVE is broken. Hunting becomes impossible and no farmers will ever die again because local will impose a physical shield between PvE pilots and their attackers.
You already know he is there…take the appropriate action, reship into a combat ship.
Maybe, but if he managed to land at a safe and cloak before you could get him scanned down…lucky him.
Maybe, but cloaks are used for many, many other things besides hiding a capital or super capital…so why should everyone else have their game nerfed. Especially when there is a better fix, simple not allow capital ships to fit a cloak of any kind.
There is that invincible cyno fleet! I knew you could do it Mike. Great to see you defeating yourself while not even logged in.
Sure it is considering the limitations such a player mush operate under to maintain that safety.
Why Mike are you hinting at a nerf to local?
Technically it is 0 or 1. Probabilities are always between 0 and 1.
Are you suggesting you’d trade local for d-scan at least for cloaking ships?
Again with this strawman. Cloaking is only risk-free if you never do anything. If you want to attack PvP targets, move cargo with a blockade runner, do PvE sites with your covert ops frigate, etc, you have to accept risk. Now, maybe you’re content to sit idle in a safespot and masturbate over how safe you are, but the rest of us have goals in mind. And executing those goals means taking risks and winning through superior skill.
(Unless of course your sole objective is forcing RMT bots to auto-dock by being present in local, in which case we have to ask why you keep advocating buffs to RMT bots.)
At every turn, as soon as you mention that a cloaked ship might actually have a chance at failing at its mission then you have completely negated every single possible use of the cloak in every situation, 100%, no matter how little sense it makes, how stupid it sounds, or impossible to fit into reality it would be.
A cloaked ship already has a chance of failure. The problem you seem to have with the situation is not that there is no chance of failure (because there is), it’s that the chance of failure depends on the other player being strong and capable of PvP instead of pressing a “MAKE THE CLOAK GO AWAY SO I CAN RMT BOT AGAIN” button.
And, as stated before, I am open to ideas that make cloaking less than 100% perfect. It starts with removing local, but once that is done we can consider proposals. You just keep making terrible ones that consist of little more than “MAKE CLOAKS GO AWAY”.
Then I am confused as to why you think this is a good idea, if warping resets the timer. It accomplishes nothing for active gameplay (since a ship can easily warp to reset the clock), and the sole reason for nerfing AFK cloaking is to protect RMTers and renter trash. So why are you proposing a change that only applies to AFK cloaking? Do you have a bot farm that you need to protect?
Could you describe in details your vision of “stealth gameplay” and why it should depends exactly on line of sights?
Stealth gameplay depends on line of sight because the core of stealth is “can I see this”. Deeper and more interesting gameplay would result from making staying cloaked out in the open at close range impossible, forcing the cloaked ship to carefully choose its approach route to stay hidden. That means taking advantage of things like asteroids to block the target from seeing the cloaked ship even at a range where it would otherwise be detected. Or possibly a ship has poor visibility to the rear, so you have to sneak up on it from behind. Etc. Then, on the other side, the (potential) target would have to be careful to stay out in the open where all of the possible approach paths are visible, potentially at the expense of being able to get an ideal position for their other goals.
The problem with EVE’s game engine is that it has no concept of “can I see this”. You can’t ask “does this asteroid block the target’s view of me”, the only factor that can be considered is distance. So, instead of being based on position and skillful flying proposals for cloak detection inevitably involve RNG and spamming scans until the RNG gives you a win.
It shouldn’t. Currently, an active cloaked ship is more or less acceptable. It is AFK cloaked ship raises shitstorms.
I thought a bit and agree that there is not much “hard detection” in my idea.
Why exactly “can I see this”? Why not “can I detect this”?
You wouldn’t have been here whining for years about afk cloaking if that were true. The thing is that you think you understand logic when you really don’t. You see it as a tool to convince another person, which it just isn’t and henceforth your accepting and rejecting of logical conclusions on a purely emotional basis has nothing to do with logical thinking.
