This would cause worse balance issues as you need to then balance out cargo hold based on no longer needing space for ammo, charges, paste etc. Fuel also places artificial limts on how far and for how long you can hunt and/or roam in a cloaky hunter.
Again, cloaks do not need changing to address AFK cloaking which affects one specific area of space. We know already what stops AFK cloaking in the sense this thread means. That is to change local.
Well, youâre certainly displaying your dishonesty more than usual. Normally you at least separate your contractions between multiple posts, now youâve even done it one right after the other!
For the slower people in the audience, here we have the supposed PvP advocate explicitly stating that their proposed change will not cause any issues for active players. That immediately rules them out as potential PvP targets, as if active players could now be engaged that would certainly count as an âissueâ and the claim would be a lie. So which outcome do you think is more likely?
or
Obviously the second option is the correct one. No additional PvP will happen because nobody will be stupid enough to leave themselves exposed to it, and making local more accurate primarily benefits people who wish to use local as a tool for avoiding PvP.
I eagerly anticipate your newest lies and dishonesty that youâll resort to in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting the truth.
Serious question: why do you want to nerf the game of those players who are not causing a problem?
Serious counter question: If I know thereâs a ship out in space and want to engage it, why am I forbidden from doing so by the application of a single mod? Lets call it the content denial mod.
Because itâs a cloak. Thatâs how they are designed.
Why does a turret do damage to a target? Or a prop mod increase speed of a ship?
Because thatâs how they were designed. The onus is on you to explain why it needs to change.
SoâŚ
Stations? Content denial structures.
Stargates? Content denial bridges.
Safe logoff? Content denial software shutdown.
Coming up with a catchy new name for a cloaking device doesnât change this still utterly pointless discussion.
Serious counter question: if I know thereâs a ship out in space and want to engage it, why am I forbidden from doing so by the built-in ability to warp between bookmarks that every ship has?
Except they are not just having a name in local, and implying that, all they can do is have a name in local is disingenuous, unless you donât know exactly how the mechanic works within the game.
Making your environment safe for your activity is important when you are undocking big things, that canât turn on a dime. And i see a lot of time spent on it, scanning anomalies in the near systems, rolling wormholes and hunting down threats to make space marginally safe, which is all we can hope for in EVE.
Cloaky, hard to find ships, are in my opinion fine to have in the game, they have a job to fill. And they should be able to do so.
The problem is that they are not hard to find, they are impossible to find. And the statement:
I am sorry to say, is also disingenuous, and the reason i mean that, is because while your solution is a solution to a cloaky camper, uncloaking within your reach. Which is not what happens in the game. Cloaky campers are not there to just go âBOO! hihihihihiâ and then warp off. They are there to drop a large force on you, against which F1 does basically nothing.
Should they be scanable in the regular sense ? No, for gods sake no. But they should be scanable with specialized equipment, that takes a time and effort.
What you are calling a countermeasure, is not a countermeasure. It is a reaction. Which is not what i am talking about.
Is it the cloaking module or cyno module you have an issue with then?
Bwahahaha, GREAT question!!!
Then why are you undocking big things that canât turn on a dime? Why arenât you flying something more agile and more expendable? Why arenât you bringing a fleet of friends in big things? You arenât entitled to minimal-risk solo farming at maximum ISK/hour just because you figured out how to defeat the NPCs.
They are there to drop a large force on you, against which F1 does basically nothing.
Ok, you got me, F1 alone isnât sufficient in a large fleet battle. You may also have to have some of your players press whatever theyâve hotkeyed âfighters: engage this targetâ to, and possibly even activate other modules. But if this large force that is dropped on you is a fatal problem and not an opportunity to turn the large force into easy killmails then the problem is not AFK cloaking, itâs that you are weak and do not control the system you are renting.
But they should be scanable with specialized equipment, that takes a time and effort.
IOW, buff RMT botting. If scanning takes time and effort then an active player can just warp away faster than you can scan them and will never be caught. The only change is that you can no longer go AFK while keeping your name in local, making local a more accurate tool for RMT botters (and bot-like players) to avoid PvP.
[cheerleader]
RMT RMT
IN THIS THREAD
THATâS WHAT YOU SEE
RMT RMT
YAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY
[/cheerleader]
Itâs not worth the time to engage those posters. Iâve already tried having a discussion here, and their presence only serves to shut it down. If you check their posting history, itâs the same reasons with the same repeated points on why they are defending cloaking staying as is.
Active players should be rewarded. If you think otherwise, then you support botting.
If youâre active this purposed change to cloaking does slightly increase the risk to being in space, while maintaining the existing gameplay mechanics used by active players.
Eve suffers from having players denied activities. I want to be able to engage a ship in space, regardless if what itâs doing. While not everyone may want that, this minor adjustment lets cloaking still cloak, but lets the hunter have a chance too.
The only real drawback to this change is the few players with a hundred or so alts that have made it a business to cloaky camp real players, spending plex to keep their cloaky alts going. Since these arenât real people and this action doesnât actually stop botters, moreso it seems to harm real players seeking to play and be active, itâs not a drawback from a business standpoint.
I donât have the numbers and I doubt CCP does either, but active players playing = more content in the game. Inactive players, or players pushed away from playing = less content. This cannot be disputed, but honestly I donât really care about the afk cloaky,
I just want a cloak to not confer unlimited 100% invulnerability.
Time to be âone of those postersâ I guess.
I would hate to see the game be more risk free by only nerfing the ability of cloaks while everything else remains unchanged. As I said before this would hit whâs, other playstyles and genuine at the keyboard players who use the cloak and not just those who go afk all day. If it only countered those who were afk all day then fair enough but it doesnât.
We keep giving the same replies because people like you keep proposing the same terrible suggestions over and over again. You arenât the first person to say âBUT WAT IF WE MAKE CLOAKS DO HEATâ, and you wonât be the last. If you want an original reply then try coming up with an idea that hasnât been proposed and shot down countless times already.
I want to be able to engage a ship in space, regardless if what itâs doing.
Too bad, because a ship warping between safespots is invulnerable. Or are you now going to demand the ability to click a name in local and warp disrupt them so you have a chance to engage?
this minor adjustment lets cloaking still cloak, but lets the hunter have a chance too.
Stop lying. The hunter has zero chance of success here. Active players will continue warping between safespots faster than you can chase them, and inactive players will log out. There will never be a target for you to attack. The ONLY effect is that, because you canât keep your name in local while AFK, local becomes a more effective tool for avoiding PvP.
moreso it seems to harm real players seeking to play and be active
Why shouldnât they be harmed? Those players are too weak to defend their space, why shouldnât they be forced to dock up and hide until they finally go back to highsec where they belong? Stop insisting that we pander to renter trash failures by giving them even less risk to worry about.
This exactly.
This thread and the bumping threads are filled with people wearing blinders who only see their situation; ignoring all the other uses for cloaking.
This is why this topic is relegated to a 5k thread no one will read. Until the âdiscussionâ includes all the uses for cloaking it is nothing more than an annoyance to managed.
I donât believe the problem is the cloaking capability. The problem is related to the fact there is no effort required to keep the cloak running. Some players are getting up to 1b per week per system to camp systems. Shouldnât they have to work a bit harder to earn their keep?
AFK in general can be a problem for the game. Instead of focusing on the cloak issue, why doesnât CCP simply add an auto logoff timer to all clients?
The issue isnât that hes afk.
You havenât started a thread about afk mining, or sitting station afk, afk ratting or anything else afk related. Youâre problem is that you donât know if heâs a credible threat or not and thereâs nothing you can do about it.
Sucks i know, but the other half of the problem is that afk cloaking is pretty much the only way to ambush someone null ratting.
So nothing is going to happen to afk cloaking until there is another realistic way to ambush null ratters.
Good question. You should probably ask the people who are willing to pay 1B per week for a minimal amount of effort. But since this payment is set by the players, not by CCP, Iâm not sure why you think that it is relevant to game mechanic changes.
Thereâs no effort in AFK farming, or botting, either,
which means that this isnât even remotely an argument.
Considering that thereâs a disproportionate amount of RMTers in null âŚ
⌠who donât even own space, but just rent it âŚ
⌠who only care about farming in perfect safety âŚ
⌠who have literally every reason to whine about afk cloakers due to loss of real life income âŚ
⌠Iâd say that youâre not actually looking at the root of the problem.
Instead you are looking at the illusion of a problem,
made up by those who are the actual problem.
It is actually safe and absolutely valid to assume that each
and
every
single
one
of
them
is an RMTer.
