I disagree with you and others on these ideas and ask questions only because I think in it’s current format it may hurt the gameplay of those at the keyboard, just as you are free to think the same of my ideas and thoughts.
The idea itself I could almost agree with if say as an added measure any sort of game input negates the heat damage altogether. Even if cloaked for 2-3-4 hours whatever, if there is input you won’t get heat damage, camp up in system and go shopping or something well…
While that’s completely true, there’s a difference between someone participating in discussion, and actively trying to shut it down with the same old, word for word replies, reasons and redirects.
If you can get more information than I can extract as to the reasons why some of these cloaky defenders don’t want cloaks to not have 100% permanent immunity to interaction while cloaked, feel free… but I see it as a fools errand to engage with some posters here.
CCP tries to placate the loudest voices. Think about the changes we’ve seen, who are the loud voices advocating for those changes? Why nerf rorquals into oblivion rather than reduce the respawn rate of ore anomalies? Why nerf carriers and other capitals damage application instead of nerfing their jump range?
I can’t, but I can say that CCP isn’t exactly on the record as caring about 100% of the people affected by their changes. I would hope that CCP would deeply consider any change and the impact it would have on the game. Numbers will need to be tweaked, some people will die not knowing about the change, others will rage for days, all of the alts used to cloaky camp on a business scale will be out of a job, but really you can’t make everyone happy.
Demanding everything stay the exact same with no changes is just as foolish as saying we should delete the cloaking device. Draw the parallels, who’s talking about and trying to work through the issue at hand, and who’s trying to distract from that process?
Local is a very interesting thing for this game. I do wonder if pirate vessels being delayed in showing up on local would produce interesting game dynamics. Sure, you wouldn’t be able to use your T3s or other ships for this purpose, but it would have some of the less uses pirate vessels a given purpose.
That could work.
I’m not sure which slot to put it, but a mod that acts like a proper heat sink that uses charges to collect the heat could be the solution for the extended stay cloaker.
Lets say it doubles, maybe triples your time being cloaked. You’d have to activate it manually, thus promoting active play, and if you run out of charges you gotta decloak to reload. Interesting idea.
One guy has characters by the name of don trolleon. Not sure if I’m spelling it right. Most of these guys hang out in the ISboxer discord (and amazingly if you watch it, you can see when they are active, thus able to evade their alts)
I know there’s others, but I’ve never actively sought out their business. If you look, you’ll find them.
Agree and as with all topics there are both for and against so it’s always give and take to find the middle ground, and as you say some still won’t agree with a change (I don’t agree with a lot of the explo changes over the years). I think there have been a lot of genuine people here discussing the afk topic, it’s a contentious one so everyone agreeing is kinda like herding cats, and rightly so each to their own and all that.
Instead of taking up a module slot could even be a rig slot. Still not a fan of more clicking or adding in fuel/charges as such, would more prefer it to be background somehow, dunno v0v.
If you want more than the same replies then try coming up with a new idea instead of repeating “CLOAKS SHOULD DO A HEAT” for the hundredth time. When all you can do is repost the same terrible ideas that have been posted for years you can’t expect more than the same statements of why they’re terrible.
Draw the parallels, who’s talking about and trying to work through the issue at hand, and who’s trying to distract from that process?
You are making the mistake of assuming that there is an issue that anyone should care about. And “my RMT bot isn’t profitable enough” is not an issue that CCP needs to be concerned with. Nor is “my alliance is renter trash and a single PvP player shuts everything down”. The only thing needed to resolve all issues with AFK cloaking is for PvE farmers to stop whining.
Being a rig could be an interesting option, effective heat reduction could be very valuable to mission runners and pvp pilots to heat longer and harder, but I don’t think they would go for it. Putting the mod in the open high slot of many ships seems easier, but I can’t completely discount the rig idea.
I was thinking heavy water might fit the job.
However, if it’s too much to ask an active player to do one minor thing, infrequently, while they are out and about to benefit from an invulnerability mod, maybe some of you need to harden up. I know CCP has been bending the knee to the loud pvp player, but everyone else keeps getting ■■■■ on… and now it’s difficult to find content because said players aren’t around.
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
The parrot is loose, I repeat, the parrot is loose.
Return to homestead for further instructions. This message will now repeat
Reason why I was thinking a passive rig slot is so there isn’t added click input, and also along the lines of what Jint was saying in regards to it being bad for covert ops playstyle, especially a covops frigate where after fitting cloak and probes not much left for other modules, or none if it’s the Helios. Same as the cargo for the fuel, as heavy water of the top of my head is about .5 I think, which could eat up cargo space pretty quick depending on requirements. Still would like to see a trade off with local or the ability to counter it if cloaks are messed with though.
The click input is the entire point. It needs to be something that can’t be done while AFK so that AFK players will be forced to log out instead of staying cloaked. If you can manage the heat while AFK then it’s still possible to obscure your status in local and the RMTers and renter trash still have to wonder if a name in local represents an active threat.
No idea if this has been suggested but I’m willing to wager isk it has so time to bring it back from the dead via necromancy
Cloaking Disruption system:
only non-friendly ships are affected, so if you or your alliance/corp is mentioned in the good boi list then you won’t be affected
each cycle has a percentage chance to be disrupted meaning when that cycle is about to end the button start to flash for 3-5 seconds, if you don’t press it by the time the cycle ends the cloak is turned off and will remain that way for 3mins also your ships performance takes a hit for the same duration.
You can also set it up to send a message to a pre-selected chat window if someone is disrupted (you can make this a benefit for aT2 variant if you want)
now if you manage to press the flashing button preventing your ship from getting disrupted then for the next 5-8 cycles you chance of being disrupted is 0%, after those 5 cycles are up the disruption chances are back to normal
one per system
can only be placed by whoever actually owns the system
That’s great. One of a dozen worakable systems to allow people to go after long-term cloaked ships in their system. But do you have a compensatory change to suggest as a counter this buffing of the proximity detector that is local chat this would be?
Because, on the surface, this just seems to be a massive buff to safety for those in nullsec.
Whenever someone declares that he wants to hunt afk cloakers and that they shouldn’t be 100% safe, the same someone needs to be reminded that the end result of the ability to hunt afk cloakers is perfect safety, which completely nullifies his argument.
Anyone in here complaining about the perfect safety of an afk cloaker deliberately ignores the resulting perfect safety for the RMTing farmers.
Of course. Local is a very powerful defensive tool. So powerful in fact, AFK cloaking is the only reasonable counter, or at least serves as a brake on 100% safe nullsec farming. When your proposal has the primary effect of making that tool even more powerful and your resource collection essentially perfectly safe, you probably should think again and come up with an alternate, or more complete set of changes to address this problem you think there is.
So yes, it is pure hypocrisy: “AFK cloaking is bad! No one should be 100% safe in Eve, but me in my private krabbing pocket with perfect intel!”
if your asking for not being seen in local then I have no idea how to make a system/mod for that function that won’t require an active counter to be used to hunt them down… and given the vast amount of hiding places in spaces the only way to make said counters practical is to make the local name hiding mod basically impractical in the first place
honestly getting rid of local feels pointless because it doesn’t offer the same risk/reward of WH space… so the risk of WH space without the rewards
if their active while cloaked then they represent an actual threat but an afk camper’s threat designation decreases rapidly for each time period nothing happens as people farm at their own leisure at which point said camper is easily dismissed as nothing.
I suggested the disruptor because many people will continue to farm as they’ll eventually figure out that the camper is no real threat and they could easily make enough isk to cover the loss of their ships if said camper comes online and finds a vulnerable victim