Can’t activate modules while cloaked.
Exactly, this is null after all so try to bait them, ignore them, whatever your call. Untill local is changed cloaking should remain unchanged as the mechanic itself affects more than just null residents.
edit for dodgy spelling.
Or removing local. If local no longer exists then there is no more reward for AFK cloaking.
Can’t be found by probes, can’t use fuel, can’t generate heat, can’t do anything but be invincible while out in space.
Yep, that’s a pretty good list of all of the terrible ideas that do nothing to add PvP risk but significantly buff PvE farming and avoiding PvP.
Where is the harm in adding a little risk?
Good question. Perhaps you should come up with an idea for adding meaningful PvP risk instead of lobbying for buffs to RMT farming?
I’m not talking about null. I’m talking about the cloaked wartarget in system I want to kill. The cloaked T3 in lowsec I want to kill. The cloaked guy I know is cloaked somewhere in this wormhole, but I can’t find any because they are cloaked. I can’t even attempt to locate them.
I want risk for being out in space. Cloaking removes the risk completely, assuming your computer doesn’t crash and your internet is stable. Is it too much to ask to make it slightly more dangerous to be cloaked? This is eve online, not the safe space service.
Please find another set of copy paste answers. You sound like a bot.
I see, so you’re going to concede that you have no answers for my criticism of your bad ideas and move on to not even pretending otherwise.
PS: you shouldn’t be surprised that you’re getting repetitive criticism when you keep reposing the same old terrible ideas.
If chasing a war target and they are using a cloak for me that is valid game play to evade and/or to possibly gather intel on the otherside. If chasing a cloaky T3 in low then I guess you would have to keep an eye on local/gates to see if they try to crash it (again a valid tactic). WH’s, a change to cloaking would be game changing for that area.
Can respect that you have your thoughts on cloaking we will just have to agree to disagree on changing it, because for me currently it’s fine and a valid mechanic and changing the mechanics without give or take would be detrimental to those aspects, and more.
Clever bot.
No, I’m geting the same answers because you and your ilk have no other recourse. No response, no discussion, no dialog.
I’ve asked for cloaking to be less safe, provided various methods that both change gameplay and don’t.
When presented with ideas, I’ve challenged them, while pointing out the good and bad, in an effort to reach some conclusion.
My questions include simple addendum to help us address the problem at large, not the perceived issue or the ones used as an excuse for the continued lack of change/discussion.
And my posts find the same people, again and again, trying to tear them apart and keep me away.
Why?
Are you afraid? Afraid I’m actually going to be the catalyst for a change? Is that why you stay on patrol, trying so very hard to reply to anything I say regarding anything I say on the subject, so it’s not easy to find?
I’ll make it very easy for you, so even the language barrier that might exist is removed:
Perceived issue: Cloaked ship is un-engageable, thus rendered perfectly safe.
Possible solutions: Add some risk to reduce the complete safety, allowing for the cloaked ship to be engaged should it remain in space
Several, valid or not ideas: Probes that find cloaked ships, modals that de-cloak ships, heat damage that makes prolonged cloaking risky, cloaks requiring fuel/capacitor, slow increase of signature radius while cloaked allowing normal probes to locate said cloaked ship, ect ect
Current status of inquiry: Further input required
Other responses received: Cloaking is fine, don’t be scared. Cloaking is fine, you’re wrong. Cloaking is a tool to stop bots and RMT. Cloaking has always been this way. You’re just wrong. Any change would change the game. (other responses are present, but cataloged under “troll” “fool” or “status quo” tags)
I’ll be interested to see what already used response you and the others here come up with. More of the same, or actually some ways to address the problem? You can prove that you actually have ideas or that you’re just here to stop any attempts of change/discussion. It doesn’t matter either way to me.
Will add something else to clarify my position on cloaking.
Do I think that someone should be able cloak for 23/7, no I don’t. I just don’t want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater so to speak with a change to cloaking mechanics. If there is something that could alleviate that 23/7 problem sure, but not everyone who fits a cloak is going afk so why should they be hit as well?.
And all of them are terrible. Keep posting terrible ideas, keep getting told that your ideas suck.
Perceived issue: Cloaked ship is un-engageable, thus rendered perfectly safe.
Better solution: stop being terrible at EVE and having your entire alliance hiding in fear every time a non-blue name is in local.
Better solution: remove local so that AFK cloaking is no longer a relevant thing to do.
Better solution: understand that an active ship can warp between safespots faster than you can chase it, so none of your ideas will generate any meaningful risk and will have the sole purpose of buffing RMT bots and bot-like players who wish to avoid PvP at all costs.
More of the same, or actually some ways to address the problem?
What problem is there? Your ignorance of game mechanics is a problem for you to educate yourself on, not a situation where CCP needs to make changes.
So why is this an issue again?
I get the idea that nobody thinks it’s an issue that cloaked ships cannot be engaged on (if the cloaked ship doesn’t make a mistake by getting into 2km of something that is), but you. Only you think cloaking being safe is an issue.
Instead of coming up with solutions for your issue, please explain first why you think it is an issue that cloaky ships cannot be found while cloaked. Isn’t it the whole intention of cloaking a ship that you cannot be found?
Cloaking has the following drawbacks:
Or in case of the CovOps cloak which has less drawbacks, the drawback is that you are required to fly a CovOps ship, which are generally weaker in uncloaked combat than their counterparts.
If you make statements like that, please make sure you don’t spread false facts.
Yarp, covers it nicely. Try making a tack 300km off a gate whilst cloaked. Even in Cov-Ops you’re twiddling your thumbs. Assuming you weren’t smart-bombed on entry anyway.
Cloaking has balances. If you know the safe then the afk cloaky is in trouble, for example.
I see you’ve ignored plenty of the very valid responses you’ve been given before about these ‘Ideas’.
Probes that find cloaked ships - WH Space broken.
modals that de-cloak ships - How does this work, what range? Not much good to target the deep space AFKer
heat damage that makes prolonged cloaking risky - Ruins cloaked and hunting gameplay, ruins slowly stalking target gameplay.
cloaks requiring fuel/capacitor - Ruins cloaked and hunting gameplay, ruins slowly stalking target gameplay.
slow increase of signature radius while cloaked allowing normal probes to locate said cloaked ship - Again breaks WK space.
Once again, we see you directly try to outright nerf cloaks to the point that they are just a normal ship that you can warp to and pew. Completely ignoring all the other ways to deal with cloaked vessels that you have been told before.
Plus you seem to have the audacity of saying that other people are BOTs repeating the same things, while just repeating the same things you posted before.
I’ve already posted my idea a few times (but you are going to hate it because it keeps cloaked vessels cloaked, which apparently scares you):
Cloak removes players from local (and denies them Local)
If they break cloak for any amount of time they stay in local for a minimum 30 sec then drop out again when they reactivate cloak…
This makes cloaks really cloakie, still gives other players Local… Makes it pointless to AFK cloak, and makes it so people have to work to both actively hunt while cloaked and pay attention while ratting.
Much like a submarine, the cloaker has to make themselves visible/detectable to gain intel on the local system. He can warp from belt to belt, but if he wants to probe, or check on the local channel (or possibly even dscan) to see how many & where people are in system, then he must break cloak. This gives the residents the time to spot him, if they are paying attention.
Here we make:
AFK-Cloaking pointless
Active Cloakers can catch botters
Even system defenders can use cloaks to hide their defense ships.
Anyway, the idea will be shot down by the null-bears, and Botters. They want all cloaks nerfed on the pretext that AFK is bad mkay!
AFK cloaking doesn’t “do anything” from a game mechanics standpoint. The pilot isn’t interacting with anyone or anything, they are just sitting there, visible in local yet invisible to anything else.
If you are AFK cloaking in a system it’s not because you want to interact with anyone or anything, but because you want to play mind games with the occupants of the system.
This is the point of AFK cloaking: it’s psychological warfare. It’s meta-gaming. It shatters the illusion of safety that a friendly local list provides. How the occupants of that system respond to this seemingly less-safe environment is entirely up to them, not the cloaked player.
I fully agree that if you consider AFK cloaking to be a problem to be solved, then the solution to that problem is local, not cloaking.
My question is this though: why do people consider it a problem to be solved? It’s a valid form of meta-gaming. The only impact it has is on the perception of people in local, it literally does nothing in terms of actual game mechanics.
Personally I’m torn on the issue. I see the validity of AFK metagaming, but I also like the idea of cloaked fleets of active pilots having more freedom to operate.
Side note: if you’re one of the tinfoil hatters who think that large nullsec blocs are calling the shots at CCP, your proposal will never happen. Why? Because it would be trivially easy place a large cloaked force into a system (especially if you space their arrivals out over time) with no warning at all all the while they are able to stage with impunity. Imagine the look of shock on a Rorq pilot’s face as they suddenly see a fleet of bomber and recons on grid where 10 seconds before local was entirely green. That’s what they would call “bad for business.” But I digress…
If you don’t mind @Bronson_Hughes I’ll steal that piece of text and add it to my profile. 
That last bit about shattering the illusion of safety has been a mainstay of mine on the topic for years.
You’re welcome to use it. 
Personally, i see the validity of it, and the need when dealing with the OP intel from local… but in my opinion, I don’t think being AFK Cloaked (no matter the need for it) is very compelling gameplay. I am also a big supporter of cloaked vessels being properly cloaked… none of this special probes, heat over time, systemwide decloak pings, BS.
That is why I tried to come up with a way of keeping cloaks hidden but not requiring AFK gameplay to catch people.
Zero-Secers and Renters should protect their systems, eyes on gates, roaming deffenders etc. They can still monitor people coming into system, report this intel to Central Command and keep track of strangers.
With my idea you will still pop up briefly on local when you switch between gate cloak and cloak-module, you will still need to drop cloak to gather system intel. These blips on local should give an active Alliance/Corporation some warning that the poop is about to hit the fan… if they are paying attention.
If you want to still do the psychological warfare meta-game, then sit in their system, occasionally dropping cloak and pinging local… “I see yoooo!”, etc.
However you would have to be at least semi active to do this.
And this is my primary difference of opinion with you. It may not be compelling gameplay…but neither is mining, salvaging, industry, research, hauling, etc. yet none of them get questioned for major overhauls because of it.
Being compelling is not a requirement for being valid, or effective, gameplay.
But, as I said before, I am torn on this. AFK cloaking may not be compelling (despite being effective), but cloaked gameplay where cloakers are removed from local may be more compelling. Does that warrant the change? I don’t know.
While those types of gameplay may not be compelling to you, they might be compelling to others. However, the reason I’m questioning AFK cloaking to be changed, is not because it isn’t compelling, it is because it is AFK gameplay.
AFK mining and AFK hauling also aren’t my idea of good gameplay, but at least those types of gameplay carry a risk and can be punished by other players.
So, firstly, I wasn’t answering you on the “compelling” part, so it doesn’t really matter to my reply that you don’t think it’s compelling or not.
Secondly, AFK cloaking carries risk as well. It’s not material risk per se, it’s time risk. While your ship and your pod aren’t really at risk once you get to your destination (assuming you’re not a horrible pilot), there’s always the risk that your effort to train up an AFK cloaker and get them to a system to mess with the pilots in local will simply be ignored and you will have no impact.
That’s the risk of AFK cloaking: being ignored. Having your time wasted. There’s no counter for it, and any player in any ship can do it.
I think the least useful reason for having an AFK cloaker is to ‘scare’ the locals. In fact, once people start ignoring your AFK cloaker, then is your time to shine, because then you can drop your fleets on their expensive ships that they undock once they ignore you.
If people are ignoring your AFK cloaker, then you can relay any and every information about the system you’re cloaking in, without repercussions. The people you’re stalking will never be able to form a fleet to catch you and your friends unaware if you have cloaky camping eyes on all of their possible staging systems.
Being ignored as cloaky camper is a benefit, not a risk.
And if people are scared of your cloaky camper, that’s a small bonus. But it’s silly to think that’s the main goal of cloaky camping. Like some people already said in this thread, it’s just pixel fear.