Finally we get to the REAL issue, the roflstomping that comes after.
No one really cares about the cloaked ship, what they really care about is the fight after.
But rather than prepare for the fight it is easier to hide or try to nerf the cloak.
1 Like
So having a cloaked ship not be immune to discovery is something you are okay with?
Who really cares if any ship has the ability to summon friends or not, they arenāt immune unless they are cloaked.
Still, considering my mention of it should not be considered with regard to this subject of āWhy must cloaked ships be immune to counter play and detectionā I feel as though you have nothing useful to add to the discussion. If you had a reason as to why a cloaked ship should remain immune, it is expected to see it shared by now. Instead, you attempt to attack and divert attention away from the subject at hand, something you canāt do with cloaked ships in eve.
Which is quite clearly the primary issue I am seeking to address.
It doesnāt matter what is sent through the cyno, the lads and I regularly fight off most small groups with minimal or no losses in most cases. As stated, the cyno is a completely different issue for a completely different day. Stay focused.
Having an unassailable ship in a system is an inherent problem to the sandbox nature of eve online, or at least how I interpret it. Cloaking, as is, removes risk from flying around hostile space. I seek an option to increase that risk. Why would such a thing be bad for the game?
Again, the fleet should be on standby 23/7 regardless of who is or is not in the system. AFK cloakers are not the only potential threat, and competent alliances have PvP ships active and in fleet at all times. Stop thinking of PvP as something you do in response to particular events (like a ship appearing in your system) and start thinking of it as a permanent state of existence in nullsec.
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.
You losing money is not the same thing as me gaining money. And itās certainly not worth considering when you are losing money because your alliance is too incompetent to defend its space and youāre too afraid of PvP to undock.
Also I would denote itās not the single cloaked ship thatās a threat, but in instantaneous summoning of unknown and possibly hordes of pilots.
You mean instantaneous summoning of expensive lossmails to kill when you counter-drop with your own fleet?
Surely a competent pilot can evade persuit if they try.
Thatās exactly the point! A competent pilot will evade pursuit with effectively zero chance of failure. Your proposal does not increase PvP engagements, it just improves the ability to use local as a tool for RMT bots and bot-like players by removing the ability to stay logged in while AFK.
And none of this answers why, if botting and RMT is somehow completely removed, does a cloaked ship need to remain an un-engageable target?
Being able to hunt all ships in space would prove to be a boon for hunters and allow for players within their sandbox to have the ability to interact with those undocked within it.
Or do you have no answer as to why cloaking should make the individual immune to interaction with other players?
I thought the motto for eve was āDonāt fly what you canāt afford to loseā and it didnāt have a caveat āUnless youāre cloaked somewhereā
Because all of the proposals for making them vulnerable either accomplish nothing or cripple them beyond any hope of ever being viable. If you want to nerf cloaks then you need a much better idea first.
(And I donāt think itās any coincidence that people keep demanding nerfs that do absolutely nothing to cause more PvP engagements but make it much easier for RMT bots and bot-like players to avoid PvP and farm more efficiently.)
So, then in what case would you deem an acceptable option for making a cloaked ship less invulnerable?
As it stands no interaction is possible, and I donāt see why anything that forbids player interact is good for the game. Making cloaked ships discoverable causes more pvp engagements to occur and introduces more risk into such activities.
Again, this isnāt in regard to RMT or bots, for the sake of this conversation assume those donāt exist anymore. Repeatedly citing that does no good.
You have this backwards. As the person asking for a change the burden of proof is on you. You need to come up with a proposed change and justify why it would be good for the game and not have too many negative consequences, itās not our job to come up with one for you.
Making cloaked ships discoverable causes more pvp engagements to occur and introduces more risk into such activities.
It does no such thing because the cloaked ship can warp between safespots faster than you can pursue it, and AFK cloakers will log off when they go AFK. There is no PvP increase whatsoever. In fact, with the ability to use AFK cloaking to mitigate local removed, there will be less PvP because fewer farmers will be forced to choose between accepting a risk of attack or not being able to make any ISK for months at a time.
Again, this isnāt in regard to RMT or bots, for the sake of this conversation assume those donāt exist anymore. Repeatedly citing that does no good.
It will stop being about RMT botters when people stop proposing changes that have a primary (and, Iām pretty sure, deliberately intended in some cases) effect of buffing RMT botters.
No no, he meant as soon as you drop probes and do a system wide scan they will pick up the initial signature, warping between spots or not; and this WILL be incredibly bad for how wormholes work.
Just to clarify, they will pick up he ships sig whereever it is as long as its inside the bubble, it will not however; scan the ship down entirely.
Im not sure im reading things right hereā¦
Personally i dont see what the issue is with afk cloakies; theyre afk.
I think youāre reading things wrong, or at least getting your quotes wrong. A ship can warp between safespots faster than you can scan for it, so forcing a cloaked ship to run away isnāt going to let you catch it and force a PvP engagement. The various anti-cloak suggestions are about avoiding PvP by providing a ācloaked ship is nearby, dock nowā warning without needing a warpable result.
wheres the thread about forcefully ejecting risk averse/non pvpers from anywhere but highsec?
i think we need oneā¦
1 Like
So it would be easier (simpler, perhaps) for all involved if you had read the thread before commenting. I know itās a big one, but all your concerns have been responded to previously in this thread.
But here goes.
Not sure where youāre from, but around here, you certainly do jump in the river if you see crocodiles in it.
A āgood reasonā helps, but not always required.
Being cloaked does not equal being immune, see here. That seems to really be your primary concernā¦ unfortunately itās just not true.
You do realise a āstanding fleetā doesnāt have to stand around waitingā¦ right? Just be in fleet with your corp/alliance mates and be ready to reactā¦ so yeah you canāt be afk.
Lol, no, it depends on the players. Stop being scared of something that could happen.
And now weāre back to ābut theyāre immune!āā¦ but you can interact with them (see further up in this post!). No one said Eve would be easyā¦ and if they did, they lied! 
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
1 Like
I can see you have no intention of actually explaining why a cloaked ship shouldnāt carry a risk to existing while cloaked in space.
I quite clearing am asking for a method to find, locate and most likely shoot at a cloaked ship. Now unless I was using two ships, one with very long ECM jammers and one with a warp scrambler to keep the ship in place, Iām probably looking to shoot the ā ā ā ā ā ā .
So why does having a cloaked ship, for ease lets say at a personal bookmark and flying off in a random direction, not need to be worried about something that could happen, such as being found?
The point stands you cannot interact with the ship. In the dangerous sandbox of eve online, why does complete safety exist? While this discussion hasnāt been going on very long, It seems very clear the only argument against being discoverable is because itās effective against RMT bots and other bots things. That notion is false, as it does nothing to bots but slightly delay their activities and Iāve clearly made a point to ignore the notion of bots and related activites for the purpose of this discussion.
The question still remains: Why should a cloaking device prohibiting player interaction and provide effective invulnerability to pvp in eve online be considered a positive feature?
Because it stops local from prohibiting player interaction and providing effective invulnerability to pvp.
Afk cloaking is the answer to the local problem.
Itās really rather simple. Cloaked != Invulnerable
If you canāt understand that (or choose to ignore it) Iām not sure thereās anything more anyone can say that will please you.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
Ok @Hillbert_Alexis lets get to the bottom line, when you quit, which you willā¦
Can I has your stuff? 
1 Like
Iāve already answered this multiple times: because every proposal so far for adding risk to being cloaked has unacceptable consequences besides adding risk. If you want to make a convincing argument that risk should be added then first you need to demonstrate that it is possible to do so without wrecking a bunch of other stuff in the process.
I quite clearing am asking for a method to find, locate and most likely shoot at a cloaked ship. Now unless I was using two ships, one with very long ECM jammers and one with a warp scrambler to keep the ship in place, Iām probably looking to shoot the ā ā ā ā ā ā .
And, again, nothing that has been proposed so far will give you a meaningful chance to shoot at the cloaked ship. You can force it to warp between safespots, but you wonāt be able to shoot it. However, if your goal is to gather enough intel on the cloaked ship to improve your farming efficiency while avoiding PvP then your proposals are certainly good for that. So if you want to be taken seriously with your claims to want more PvP then you need to think through the consequences of your proposed changes and make suggestions that genuinely increase PvP without just helping farmers avoid it. Until then everyone is going to believe that you are yet another farmer using āmore PvPā as a cover for your real goal of avoiding it.
Getting lucky to discover a cloaked ship, is just that, its luck. Itās not active gameplay, and it sure as hell doesnāt let a player have a chance to find a cloaked ship that didnāt warp to a location that isnāt normally among the celestials in system.
Cloaking still makes you fundamentally immune to interaction.
The more I look at this, the more I see a select few individuals arguing (rather ineffectively as counterpoints are not on topic at best or trolling at worst) and I do wonder if the reason nothing has changed is due responses like yours forbidding a reasonable discussion.
What local problem? You mean the fact local is used as an intel tool?
You say that like thereās player activites and actions in the game that were never planned for, but are now accepted. Things such as living in wormholes, propulsion equipment accelerating achieving warp, and even the special mass engangler mod created for a select few.
Why are we making a special snowflake excuse for cloaking, when all of this exists and is accepted?
And why should cloaking have no risk?
I am not proposing any idea or solution to your issue of giving a meaningful chance to shoot a cloaked ship, the subject here is why does cloaking not carry the risk of player interaction outside select transit situations, and why is this a positive thing for eve online.
CCP themselves have said that local is too powerful as an intel-tool. They want to change, but donāt know exactly how. Theyāve also said that as long as local is what it is, AFK-cloaking is a valid tactic to counter it.
Because, for the 999999th time, no viable change to add risk has been proposed. It is not an absolute requirement that cloaking have no risk, but the method of adding risk canāt break a bunch of stuff in the process.
I am not proposing any idea or solution to your issue of giving a meaningful chance to shoot a cloaked ship, the subject here is why does cloaking not carry the risk of player interaction outside select transit situations, and why is this a positive thing for eve online.
If you arenāt proposing a solution to the problem then why are you here? Thereās no point in arguing about abstract philosophical issues like āshould there be riskā if you canāt provide a practical solution for CCP to implement.
1 Like
Have you ever actually tried to move a cloaky camper type alt around? risk is at every gate, every celestial - it could even be your intended target if your going to uncloak for pvp.
Where is the risk to the PvE player though that just sits in station?
There is literally 0.
Sure this camper stops you making isk, but your not risking anything; not until you leave the station and accept the same risks.