Congratulations you have now broken all of Wormhole space.
Does this capacitor drain that overrides the cap-stability of a ship apply to all ships? or only the Cloaked Ship that you so much want to nerfed??? DO you think its fair that a non cloak ship can become cap-stable and run other modules indefinitely but a cloak shop cant???
You are also harming many cloak playstyles for at the computer players with this.
Again, you are just targeting a single module… What if I was to suggest that running your weapons over a period of time (without stopping for a cool-down) will cause them to jam/explode damaging your other module slots. Or shield hardners, or afterburners…
Again here you cause issues and nerfs to many ‘at computer’ cloaking playstyles, claiming it is because AFK is bad.
You have also failed to address the other side of the issue, Local.
Now if you had added “the cloaked vessel will not appear in local while cloak is active” with your ideas, they may have some merit and deserve some discussion.
Nobody ever said CCP is not interested in making changes; what people have said is CCP has recognized that cloaking cannot be addressed in a vacuum as the related intel from Local is deeply connected to how cloaking impacts gameplay.
Yes, CCP recently offered reimbursement for ship losses due to Local not working consistently as an intel tool. Which means CCP recognizes that players rely heavily on Local as an intel tool, and that if they make any changes to cloaking, they have to account for how those changes interact with Local, the impacts to intel as a result, and find a solution that addresses the psychological issue (per CCP’s own statements) without depriving players of the ability to interrupt the income activities of other players via valid use of game mechanics.
As for your insistence that a suggestion does not have to address an issue or solve a problem, you are hanging that on the concept of this being a general discussion space. It is not. This is a forum for the proposal of changes to the game. Making a change costs CCP money. Part of any proposal here is why should CCP make this change, given it is an expense to CCP to do so and that CCP is in the business of making money off of EVE. If the only reason to make a change is ‘because it would be new/different/cool’, the proposal is in fact a bad idea with regards to changing EVE Online at CCP’s expense. It can still be interesting and cool, but that doesn’t make it good and it os valid to criticize the idea on that basis.
Right! I’ve removed a large number of off topic, argumentative, rules violating posts. At this point, you lot should know what is and isn’t acceptable. Don’t do it again.
And this right here would do away with the “problem” of AFK cloaking. This applies Occam’s Razor to this issue. Problem: An unaccounted for pilot’s name sits in local for a long time (aka 23/7)
Reaction A: Pilots who call the system home stay docked up either fearful of the unknown or out of caution, either way they are not doing what they’d like to do to make ISK.
Reaction B: Pilots who call the system home undock with a plan to counter the unknown after gathering as much intel on the unkown “cloaky”. This may be through baiting or a show of force.
Reaction C: Pilots who call the system home undock and go about there way either not getting jumped by the AFK pilot (who as the name implies is "Away From the Keyboard) or getting jumped by the pilot playing the game while cloaked (Go to Reaction B for a counter to pilot who jumped you)
Solution A: Fundamentally change how cloaks work or don’t work (being able to probe down cloaked ships makes cloaks pointless) in an effort to “counter” AFK cloaking and in the process negatively impact the playstyle of 90% of the people who use cloaks (I feel like I’m being pretty generous with that amount, but I admit I have no clue. But no one has given any factual evidence of how serious a problem this is either) Solution B: As soon as a person activates a cloak module their name disappears from local. Now ratters/miners/whatever can rat as normal. If the player is AFK then it doesn’t matter. If the ratters/miners/whatever get jumped, then the cloaky player wasn’t AFK, so no problem with a player playing the game, right?
This would solve the AFK cloaking issue while simultaneously not nerfing cloaks OR nerfing local (ala Blackout)
All those in favor?
Remove cloaked players from Local to counter AFK cloaking
This would just cause carebears to cry even more because now they’ll be even more terrified over the self-imposed idea that every system can potentially have an active cloaked character.
They’re gonna complain about both, while conflating the issues, like they’ve done since 2017.
They don’t operate on logic or facts. Just emotional cues. And since they’re scared, they’re gonna blame whatever they can.
I would only add one thing. It is something I have put in this as well.
In addition to the pilot disappearing from local, they should also not be able to interact with local. If given the ability to chat in local while cloaked would then populate them in local again, negating the solution.
Dude seriously are you replying to me? I know you aren’t new here so I know you’ve seen what Ive written. Pretty sure you have liked a bunch of it.
I have never been in the nerf cloaking camp EVER.
I have always had an issue that covert isn’t truly covert if you still show in local. personally I’d prefer a cloaked ship to disappear from local everywhere.
