If I’m assuming max skills and a T3 mod to reduce heat damage, at a minimum if 2 hours isn’t enough time for you to do your thing, needing to warp to a safe and nanite up doesn’t seem like a problem.
Because it doesn’t take long to apply nanite paste if you’re at the keyboard. It also gives a slight increase in risk to being the cloaky guy which might get you killed, but also might bring kills to you.
That’s an issue then. I wasn’t aware being decloaked for ~3ish minutes or more at a time made you impossible to catch. How do you purpose it’s addressed? Is the change related to the issue at hand, or moreso to game mechanics at large?
Then you aren’t bothering to think through the consequences of your ideas. If you have 30 minutes to 2 hours of cloaked time you have plenty of time to make sure you’re in a safe place before you have to decloak. You can log off, go to a different system, bounce between safespots, etc. There is essentially zero risk during that waiting period unless you happen to lose your connection and can’t log back in before you are probed and destroyed.
The actual effect of a mandatory no-cloak period every 30-120 minutes is that it becomes easier to avoid PvP against a cloaked ship. The cloaked ship may have to give up its pursuit and allow you to escape, and it certainly can’t stay idle in local for an extended period of time to mitigate the use of local to avoid PvP.
Of course I’m pretty sure you know all of this already, and your claims about wanting more PvP are nothing more than an attempted pretense of legitimacy on your desire to buff the ability to avoid PvP.
@Hillbert_Alexis Will respecfully disagree with this as with such a short timer it seems more about nerfing cloaks in general, and doesn’t really add much to address the issues of hurting some other aspects of EvE.
PVE activities such as solo exploration or wh diving could be hit as what if someone is caught in a system and wants to wait them out, or even the pvp side in regards to wh’s in general, or k space in setting up perch spots, warp ins and other bm’s, observing what they fly and with who, who else is around, what are they doing, where are they going, what are their main tz’s of play etc which potentially could last for more than 2 hours.
Because the proposal is targeting a single module and suggesting that it works in a different way to every other module in the game. In an effort to nerf all cloaking playstyles and activities.
Just another in a long line of ‘suggestions’ in this thread that nerfs
all types of cloaking, using the ‘AFK is Bad’ excuse.
But your argument was “if this applies to cloaks, why not also apply this to other modules”. You didn’t provide any reason why any other module should he treated the same way. Instead you just threw out a weak “well then everything else should also be changed the same way!” argument.
Well my question was why is this suggestion specifically targeting Cloaks, yes.
If the suggestion is that an hour of continuous use Breaks a cloak module, maybe he should explain why this rule only applies to one module type in the game, and every other module can be run infinitely (cap/ammo willing).
If you weren’t aware, this thread is specifically about AFK Cloaky, and hence, Cloaking devices would be the specific module that people provide suggestions to. Or are you thinking this is a general module balance discussion thread?
Perhaps those advocating fuel/nanite use can give details on all the rebalancing required for ships built around cloak capability.
Larger cargo hold for the fuel/nanite paste? That creates issues with ammo storage/cargo space/loot space for explorers etc.
What about the ships that are substantially less combat capable from mounting cloaks, do they all get buffs? Do cloaks have fitting requirements amended down as they are substantially nerfed? That brings in other balance issues.
Remember that all of the above are changes to a module that doesn’t require changes. We already have evidence that a simple change to local stops AFK cloaking.
Wow, sarcastic much?
Does not matter what thread it is, if you are making suggestions that change basic game fundamentals…
Modules can run indefinitely given the appropriate capacitor.
Manual Overheating causes damage to modules.
Then you have to consider the whole game when suggesting these changes.
But back to the original suggestion and my ‘weak’ argument. Its a crap idea that does massive harm to many active cloaking playstyles. So as a solution to AFK Cloaking, its really really bad.
That good enough for you?
It’s not specifically about cloaking devices, it’s about AFK cloaking. When the chat system killed local AFK cloaking stopped. I’m certain that the chat system didn’t change how cloaks work, therefore it was the change to local that stopped it. No module change or hideous rebalance headaches required.
You call me dumbass and moron, yet you have no clue what I was saying…
Once you set your buy or sell order, staying online has no impact on the game. Once you put your cloaky camper in a system, it does matter whether you stay online or not.
If you’re active, it doesn’t cause issue.
If you’re not active, you know how long you have for safety.
If you’re stuck, find a safe place and log off.
Only if you live in the state of denial. Let me know if you want a temp visa out of there.
I don’t think fuel is the answer, but it would be interesting to add. Personally, if this was the route CCP went, I’d love a fuel and ammo bay for all ships.
Why should they feel they have to log off to avoid a game mechanic if they are active and don’t want to be seen, and possibly try to wait someone out? e.g What if for example they fire up another account and station trade on it while keeping an eye on the camp while perched in a safe on grid waiting.
A cloak is a counter to local. If the cloaking module is going to be nerfed then I think it’s only fair that local gets a corresponding amount of change to counter it. There are a couple suggestions in the thread that went towards addressing both whereas this seems to only favour adding more to local.