I actually disagree with that. I think null has its own problems and making null whatever it is isn’t my business as I don’t live out of null. But what I do have issues with is that I can’t exactly inflict any harm to anyone fitted with a cloak. I don’t like the idea of camping at all, for me active gameplay is valued much higher then passive camping gameplay. Same reason I can’t stand mining or camp gates. It’s far more interesting to roam or poke your head into a WH to look for fun. Its sadly impossible to get anything done past seeing proabs on scan and know your opponent sits there safe in a spot and you won’t ever be able to get to them.
The grown up discussion was had long before you got here. (and where did i lie?)
It’s a nice idea what you want cloaks to be, but it’s not happening, it’s not even going to begin to be considered, until local in null, and probably more mechanics related to null, are also worked upon.
When they say null people are self centered to the point they can’t imagine the game to have other types of space then null. This is what they refer too.
And all of them deserve the opportunity to be countered by other players. Currently that is not the case.
When a single module becomes so ubiquitous that nearly every ship in your entire area of space sees it as an outright requirement, it’s time to rethink how powerful that module should be. Not just optimal, but an outright requirement.
When that module trumps any and all attempts at active disruption regardless of the resources or manpower brought to bear, it’s time to rethink how powerful that module should be.
Consider the effort that went in to hunting some capital ships that someone noted the time pilot and place that a ship logged off… so as to catch it logging back on years later and that edge case is used as an example of why cloaks are so vitally needed to remain perfect. Literal years worth of effort hunting a ship, and it should be negated by a single module.
How about countering cloaky eyes watching things you don’t want watched? Currently you just go “welp, they are watching and jack all to be done about it”.
Just because you have a certain culture in WH space that depends upon cloaks as mandatory in the same way that basic weapons/armor/shield modules are does not mean they should not be changed. In fact, quite the opposite… it practically begs for changes.
I also love how “Local was never meant to be intel” keeps being brought up. When unintended gameplay arrises that PvP pilots enjoy it’s “Emergent”, but when they don’t it’s a “Problem”.
The same can be said for AFK-cloaking.
No, it really can’t. The most common position on afk-cloaking is the ask that a mechanism be put in place that allows for an active pilot to disrupt the activity of an afk one. Like, you know, literally every other activity in the game not inside a station. (Sigh…or Pos or tethered…all designated safe spots in game)
So you are saying that AFK-cloaking isn’t emergent-behavior, but designed by CCP?
Sure, we can call the endless camping under a cloak emergent if you want.
There’s that ignorance again.
We’re telling you cloaks affect more than null. But the fact that afk cloaking is only an issue in null should indicate to you that the problem has something to do with null.
Your also talking to people who have been strongly pushing for changes in all areas of the game. Ganking, social corps and wardecs have nothing to do with null, but I’ve been taking part in such discussion for years as well.
You are out of touch.
I’ve already told you not to lie about this.
The fastest way to make all parts of these issues irrelevant while solving countless other real issues with genuinely bad metas and generally contributing beneficially to the overall health of the game and community satisfaction all the while increasing the revenue earned by EvE is to extend the alpha login restriction to all omega accounts.
No other change would have as much positive impact as that. The difference would be absolutely staggering and wholly positive over the short and long runs.
Maybe you can define the problem?
I mean if there is going to be a fix there must be a problem right?
Yeah its awful when people do that.
I don’t get how adults can behave like little children. At this point it would be nice if there was a separate thread where cloaking is discussed with heavy moderation. Leave this joke of a thread to anyone who wishes to discuss the reason cloaks should stay as they are.
It really shows how small some people on this forum have to be to join in on a discussion to salt the convo as much as possible just because they want to force there opinions town anyone’s throat who disagrees.
The last 200 posts have been nothing about cloaks. Just a bunch of random insulting wishwash. It’s sad to have even been part of it.
There won’t be, because this is CCP’s trash can for carebear whines. They have explicitly stated that they will not be changing cloaks. The only reason this thread exists at all is to keep the whine threads from cluttering up the rest of the forum, there is no way they want a separate thread that requires extra work from them.
IOW, you want to make it impossible to keep your name in local when you go AFK so that local becomes more effective as an intel tool.
(Sigh…or Pos or tethered…all designated safe spots in game)
Cloaks are also a designated safe spot. There, problem solved.
This pretty much.
So you could not define an actual problem so you want a thread where discussing a problem before a fix is not allowed?
Suppressing the comments of those you disagree with is a tactic
Anyone else that really wants to discuss cloaks should avoid replaying to the posters above. All they want is to repeat the same washed out opinion of there’s over and over, that cloaks are fine and they don’t want them to change. Absolutely nothing more is gained by replaying to them. In fact it will clutter the thread and prevent anyone else that really wants to change cloaks from ever forming a discussion about it.
The only discussion required on cloaks is “nothing is going to change”. Sorry if you don’t like the answer that you’ve been given, but sometimes it’s just “no”.