Dear CSM,
I will post here, due to be rational, and to be effective - my consumed time wise, my message to EVE Player Experience Team. Please, and kindly, review it carefully and in details, as it is presented in good faith, to IMPROVE the game-play of EVE Online. Thank You in advance, for your time - invested in consideration and analysis, and as well, hopefully, effort in solving it - in at least one, of the following ways.
The first message/s:
(quote) “Dear CCP Support Team,
I am writing to submit a formal game-play suggestion and critique regarding the interaction between cloaking mechanics, directional scan (D-scan), and site-based PvE activities (specifically data and relic sites). I will be very direct, because this concerns fairness, game design coherence, and - most importantly - the long-term health of EVE Online.
First, the current mechanic:
At present, D-scan does not reveal a cloaked player or ship, even when that ship is within extremely close proximity - on the order of 21+ km. This applies even though D-scan can otherwise scan vast distances (up to 14.3 AU). The result is that a cloaked player can be physically near another pilot, actively present in the same location, yet remain completely undetectable except through local chat.
This leads directly to the following problems:
1. Unfair disadvantage for data and relic site runners
Players running exploration content are placed at a structural disadvantage. Cloaked players can camp sites for hours without any counter-play or meaningful risk, preventing sites from being completed at all. In practice, this means entire chains of sites (e.g., 4–5 sites in a system) can remain blocked for hours, causing players to lose income and time without any actionable response.
2. Site camping without interaction is not game-play
Some players camp exploration sites for extended periods, not engaging, not revealing themselves, and not allowing content to progress. This is not emergent game-play - it is passive denial enabled by mechanics. The result is stagnation, frustration, and wasted time.
3. The local + cloak + D-scan interaction is logically inconsistent
Seeing a player in local chat, knowing they are present in the system, but being completely unable to detect them at distances of a few kilometers - while simultaneously having access to a scanning device capable of surveying astronomical distances - is, frankly, an outrageously illogical mechanic.
4. This disproportionately harms new and returning players
You are well aware that the core player base largely consists of players who joined 10–20 years ago. New player influx is already weak, and mechanics like this actively make it worse. New players running exploration content are effectively turned into prey for lawful exploiters of game mechanics, without understanding what is happening or why they cannot respond.
5. Cloaked camping in hubs and forced game-play locations is not fun, not intelligent, and not honest
Facilitating permanent cloaked presence in hubs, choke-points, and game-forced locations (such as exploration sites) removes agency from the active player. There is no decision-making, no counter-play, and no risk symmetry. This is not clever game-play - it is dishonest design.
6. Dishonest mechanics drive players away
When game-play systems reward passive denial and information asymmetry without countermeasures, you cannot realistically expect new players to stay. They are not losing due to mistakes - they are losing because the system offers no tools to respond intelligently.
Now, regarding a solution:
In a highly technologically advanced future - such as the one EVE Online is set in - it makes no sense that a player can be visible in local (therefore confirmed to be present in the system), yet be completely undetectable within 30 km, despite the use of advanced scanning systems capable of detecting objects across multiple astronomical units.
A reasonable and future-oriented solution would be:
- Introduce a specialized detection device or mechanic that allows players to detect cloaked ships within short-range proximity (e.g., 200-300 km), only if the player is already confirmed present in the system (via local).
- This would not remove cloaking, but would introduce counter-play, risk, and decision-making.
- Such a system would preserve stealth at range, while preventing abuse of permanent, consequence-free cloaked camping at forced-content locations.
Finally, I want to be clear:
If this situation remains unchanged, I am seriously considering writing a negative review on Steam - not out of hostility, but out of responsibility. I do not want new players to waste their time becoming targets of lawful but unintelligent exploitative mechanics, especially when no rational or technological justification exists for them.
EVE Online has always been at its best when intelligence, preparation, and risk management matter. Passive, untouchable mechanics that deny content without interaction do not align with that legacy.
I sincerely hope you consider revisiting this design decision in the near future.
Respectfully,
KETS75”
and, additional message in the same thread:
“CONSTRUCTIVE ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION (see first on in upper text):
At the very least, exploration should remain workable under realistic risk conditions.
Currently, hacking data and relic sites cannot be performed under a covert ops cloak, nor is there any skill-based or module-based alternative that allows partial protection or counter-play. This effectively guarantees that an exploration ship - especially a frigate-class hull - is defenseless against cloaked campers who wait passively and strike with perfect timing.
This is not a theoretical concern; it is a practical one. Being instantly one-shot by a Loki while flying a Buzzard, for example, is not a failure of piloting, preparation, or intelligence - it is simply the inevitable outcome of asymmetric mechanics. There is no warning window, no detection possibility, and no meaningful decision-making involved for the explorer.
To discourage this form of unfair camping, at least one of the following should be considered:
Allow data and relic hacking while using a covert ops cloak, possibly with penalties (reduced virus strength, increased hacking time, or limited module usage).
Introduce a skill-based mechanic that enables temporary, localized concealment during hacking, forcing attackers to take real risks rather than relying on perfect information.
Alternatively, provide exploration-specific countermeasures that offer short-range detection or escape windows during active hacking, rather than permanent immunity.
The core issue is not PvP risk. Risk is fundamental to EVE Online. The issue is risk without agency. Exploration currently exposes players to unavoidable loss scenarios where no amount of skill, awareness, or preparation can change the outcome.
This kind of design does not reward intelligence - it rewards patience and exploitation of forced game-play locations.
If exploration content is meant to remain a viable entry point for new and returning players, it must provide at least some tools to respond intelligently to cloaked threats. Otherwise, exploration becomes little more than bait.
I strongly urge you to consider this not as a request for safety, but as a request for fair, skill-based interaction consistent with EVE Online core philosophy.”(end of quote/s)
Thank You, sincerely, once again, and in advance.
Best Regards,
KETS75
And, still you argue only about it…
FGS!