Care to define the problem before you post a fix?
Balance AFK, which is legal in EVE?
DUH!!
What a bunch of dumb posts, did you even read the thread?
Since cloaking and AFK are not illegal and there is no reward for being cloaked, why are you proposing changes?
For eve online being a player driven sandbox, can someone explain why cloaking doesnāt have any real counterplay?
Sure, you can instant lock a cloaky on the gate (if your awake, there waiting and your connection isnāt awful)
Sure, you can decloak the cloaky if he lands in a warp disruption bubble and you have something present near his landing location
Sure, you can get him if his connection fails and/or when they logoff/log on, but this requires active probes out for roughly 30 seconds of a 24 hour day
For anything and anyone else, you can find them. You can find what structure they are hiding in, what site they are doing, their abyssal exit point, their escalation/scanned combat site, but for a cloaked ship, you canāt do anything at all.
In your eve online sandbox, thereās a guy in a system you claim and you canāt remove him. Thereās no method to engage the target. You can lay a trap, you can ignore him, you can even just go elsewhere, but in your sandbox there is something you cannot interact with.
Forget the fact the cloaky guy may have friends, a cyno or a sneaky cyno, there is something in the game you cannot deal with outside of highly illegal and EULA breaking real world actions.
I wish to ask if anyone considers such a thing a positive feature of the game, and if so, why.
To intercept common replies:
To counter bots; this is not something the players should have to do, nor does it stop bots for long.
To gain intel; then youāre active at your computer, thus shouldnāt have any major difficulty avoid people that want to shoot you.
To drive down indexes; Iād just place this in the griefing/harassment category. You are doing something that keeps people from playing a game they want to play by presenting a danger they cannot engage at will. If this is in CCPs interests, please show me how.
To restrict player income generation; If this is a problem, changes to anomalies and payouts can achieve this, as can the proper elimination of bots. As it stands, it sounds like a convenient excuse.
And finally, I would add the notion: If CCP changed how war works because of the massively negative effect it had on players, why not this?
It counter plays itself, you canāt do anything.
So, in an attempt to get a real answer, why/how does it counter play itself, and why do you consider it a positive game feature?
You canāt do anything, you canāt attack all you can do is watch local, which any docked person can do.
What exactly are you trying to counter?
If you have to ask why cloaking is a positive game feature then you really need to learn more before you try to change things.
An individual that is docked can be tracked, they can be removed if they are in an enemy structure and their ability to leave that station/citadel can be inhibited.
Iām asking a question here. You seem to have what you would deem an answer. Why not share it with the class?
So what? In case WiS ever comes back?
Letās face it, all this is about is people who will not rat or mine unless they are alone in a system or everyone else is docked and can be watched with an alt.
They are afraid to undock or they are bots.
Pixel Fear cannot be fixed with code and keeping bots docked is a good thing.
There was never any argument against the fact players donāt wish to be in space when there is someone hostile in that local system. This is natural. One does not go into the river if they see crocodiles in it.
What I am asking is why there is no counter-play, pursuit or engagement options for players to go after a cloaked ship. You appear to be avoiding this question, and you indicated that cloaking as-is should be considered a positive game feature. Elaborate.
Because counter play is to counter something and since the cloaked ship does nothing, there is nothing to counter.
It is that simple.
There appears to be a breakdown in comprehension
There is clearly a contradiction here. Clearly the cloaked ship does something.
The question here, presented and requesting further details, is why you deem having a cloaked ship immune to interaction by other players while itās cloaked.
Players will see a hostile ship and either be unable to fight it, or wish to fight it. Cloaking means players have no choice in the matter, unless the cloaked ship makes a mistake or attempts to engage a target.
Again: You say that cloaking, as it, is something you consider a positive game feature. I would like to hear exactly why you believe this to be the case. If I donāt understand where you are coming from on the matter, how can I understand why you believe cloaking should be something of an immunity button?
What, because as I explained, to counter something you need to have it do something.
What does it do?
Are you trying to talk in circles?
You already indicated that having a hostile in system causes people to protect their assets and dock, or move somewhere else.
A hostile in system has the effect of disrupting the activities of players within that system. The same effect can be achieved by a ship that isnāt immune to interaction by other players.
Why must cloaking provide the cloaked ship with immunity from other players?
What purpose does that serve?
No, you are still trying to answer the question, What does a cloaked ship do that needs to be countered?
Pixel fear on the part of other players is not the fault of the cloaked ship.
Because thatās how a cloak works, and the various proposals to change this fact either donāt do anything besides provide an early-warning system for RMT bots or make cloaked ships completely ineffective.
This premise is entirely wrong. Thereās an obvious counter-play option: keep a standing PvP fleet active at all times and force the cloaked ship to sit uselessly in a safespot. The issue is not that a cloaked ship is an impossible obstacle, itās that weak groups who donāt have the ability to genuinely control the space they rent feel entitled to risk-free farming just because they put their name on the system and want local to be a more effective intel tool for that purpose.
To drive down indexes; Iād just place this in the griefing/harassment category. You are doing something that keeps people from playing a game they want to play by presenting a danger they cannot engage at will. If this is in CCPs interests, please show me how.
And this is utter nonsense. A cloaked ship in system does not prevent you from playing, your stubborn commitment to never undocking unless you can guarantee that you are 100% safe from all possible threats prevents you from playing. Accept a chance of loss while PvE farming and you are free to play the game. But apparently some people do not consider it an acceptable option to have a chance of losing.
Letās assume the botting issue is completely removed in the future for the sake of argument.
What does having the danger of being discovered while cloaked, even in a safe spot, render cloaking completely ineffective? A player would still be able to warp around to escape pursuit and eventually log off if they felt truly trapped.
Furthermore, what good does forcing players to keep a standing pvp fleet active just because a single ship with a cloak they cannot interact with may or may not be threatening them? Why is the answer to have multiple people sit around waiting for the ship you cannot interact with do something? Isnāt eve about generating content?
The small group, where ever they may be can only go elsewhere to avoid the cloaked ships gaze, hope they are truly afk/not a threat, or simply not play.
Data shows having a hostile in your system does prevent people from playing. Not everyone wants the same things in eve. Cloaking being untouchable is merely having the ability to be 100% safe from all possible threats until you wish to move. Itās removing the chance of loss while out in space.
Iām really just talking about addressing the fact that a cloaked ship is effectively 100% safe. Is attempting to lower that wrong?
Also Iād like to thank you for actually responding with some substance and giving examples.
Because knowing that a cloaked ship exists is a very powerful ability even if you canāt pin down its exact location. A farmer can set up a probe bubble around their ship and immediately warp off once a threat appears, before the cloaked ship can even arrive on-grid with them.
A player would still be able to warp around to escape pursuit and eventually log off if they felt truly trapped.
And this is why the idea that it will increase PvP is a joke. The cloaked ship can still move from safespot to safespot and remain immune to attack, it just canāt stay logged in once the player goes AFK. The only effect is to make local more effective as an intel tool for RMT bots and players with a skill ceiling on par with a RMT bot.
Furthermore, what good does forcing players to keep a standing pvp fleet active just because a single ship with a cloak they cannot interact with may or may not be threatening them? Why is the answer to have multiple people sit around waiting for the ship you cannot interact with do something? Isnāt eve about generating content?
You have a standing fleet for ANY threat. Thatās what farmers donāt get, PvP is a constant activity that you should always be prepared for, not an occasional special event that can be avoided if you donāt want to participate. You keep a standing fleet up at all times even when no threat is in system because you never know when a threat might appear. An interceptor might jump in and quickly tackle a target that was too slow to look at local, a threat might come in through a wormhole or logon trap and bypass the gates, etc. An AFK cloaked ship is not forcing you to do anything you arenāt already doing.
PS: things like keeping a standing PvP fleet sufficient to deter attack separate the strong and competent groups from the renter trash.
The small group, where ever they may be can only go elsewhere to avoid the cloaked ships gaze, hope they are truly afk/not a threat, or simply not play.
Correct. Small groups are not entitled to success in nullsec. Sometimes the answer is just that your enemies are bigger and more powerful and your nullsec effort failed.
Not everyone wants the same things in eve.
Yes, but when someone wants something that is fundamentally incompatible with EVEās core identity then the answer is ānoā.
I canāt say Iāve seen anyone use probes to decloak a ship when it arrives or lands, but that assumes itās warping into the ship or the sites location at 0. I wouldnāt call it a solution, and you can use other tactics to reveal the ship, but if the cloaked pilot has a bookmark to warp to, this bypasses this defense.
Being unable to remain 100% safe while cloaked provides the active roamer with options. One cloaked ship can go in and bait out targets to find him, players will be more inclined to actively search for a cloaked ship, thus possibly providing more pvp content for the cloaked ship. Again, for discussion purposes, lets assume CCP solves the botting menace.
Pretty much every group has pvp players, and communication which allows people to know thereās a fight happening. For the idea of having a standing fleet, thatās just not fun nor should it be a requirement to deal with a single cloaked ship. I know that when a hostile comes into our area, we tend to cease activity and move to intercept them. We do have success with attacking cloaked ships, but thatās because they choose to move from gate to gate.
I can count numerous occasions where a cloaked ship escaped our wishes to fight it simply by it being cloaked and just warping off to, probably a planet or moon, and afking for some time before moving on.
This discussion is not limited to nullsec, it involves the inability to engage a cloaked ship. This encompasses all space, even wormhole space. Nullsec does have better options for catching a cloaked ship while itās moving, so it should be the place that a cloaked ship is in the most danger.
In a game about risk vs reward, why would you argue keeping cloaking as something that removes risk from the equation a good thing with eves core identity?
Of course you havenāt seen it, because it isnāt possible now. The common proposal is to make cloaked ships show up on probes (sometimes with special anti-cloak probes). And the issue is that you could just drop the probe bubble at a 5AU radius around your current position and spam the scan button. You wonāt get a warpable result immediately, but youāll see a new scan target appear in your 5AU bubble and know that it means that a cloaked ship is incoming and itās time to warp back to station.
For the idea of having a standing fleet, thatās just not fun nor should it be a requirement to deal with a single cloaked ship.
Again, itās a requirement for existing in nullsec. If you donāt find constant readiness for PvP to be enjoyable then feel free to go back to highsec.
In a game about risk vs reward, why would you argue keeping cloaking as something that removes risk from the equation a good thing with eves core identity?
Because:
Risk vs. reward is a thing. A cloaked ship can not attack anything, can not make ISK in PvE, etc. Its only ārewardā is that terrified carebears will stay docked as long as a name is in local. Negligible reward, negligible risk.
As I said, proposed cloak changes so far either break cloaking entirely or accomplish nothing but buffing RMT bots. If AFK cloaked ships being 100% safe is the price of having cloaking work as a mechanic then thatās just how itās going to be.
Oh, I didnāt understand what you meant about the probes. Perhaps, if such a thing was implemented, it can only be placed on certain ships, such as ones with a covert cloak?
Iām not arguing against the idea of a standing fleet, but more the concept that because there is a threat in system that you cannot engage or interact with, said standing fleet should just be on standby 24/7? That doesnāt sound like engaging gameplay.
Iād argue the reward for being cloaked in a system cannot be measured. It could be nothing, it could be costing billions of lost isk and playtime. Depends on the system. All for 0 risk to the cloaked ship.
As mentioned, for this purpose we are assuming the botting menace and RMT is completely dealt with at some future date.
Also I would denote itās not the single cloaked ship thatās a threat, but in instantaneous summoning of unknown and possibly hordes of pilots.
Thatās a discussion for another time, for right now Iād like to focus on why you say (Iām guessing in reference to my suggestion of being able to locate a cloaked ship) would break cloaking entirely. Surely a competent pilot can evade persuit if they try.