Suggestion Regarding Cloaking, D-Scan Mechanics, and New Player Experience

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
21

The Mobile Observatory has a fixed lifetime - of roughly one hour(!), which, applies a periodic, system-wide check against cloaked ships, but it never de-cloaks ships directly!

Instead, it forces a decision by destabilizing long-term inactivity. Every 10 minutes, it emits a cloak-disruption pulse that evaluates each cloaked ship in the system: if a ship has been cloaked continuously for at least 15 minutes and the pilot has taken no qualifying action, there is a chance-based de-cloak of about 40% per pulse, with each pulse being independent (no memory), yielding cumulative probabilities of roughly 40% after one pulse, 64% after two, 78,4% after three, and 87% after four. As a result, persistent AFK cloaks become statistically(!) unstable, while active cloaking remains viable!

Can you imagine, that, a cloaked ship is considered active - and thus protected from the Observatory - if(!) the pilot moves the ship (any - velocity change), activates a module, de-cloaks and re-cloaks, warps, or interacts with probes or objects… FGS…

The key design point is that the Observatory targets inactivity, not stealth, which is why it does not break covert ops scouting, active hunting, wormhole traversal, or tactical cloaking.

Mate, give to people all the info, BEFORE, suggesting something as a solution, which obviously it is not, especially not to the OP argument.

22

I mean, really? :rofl: That’s your argument?!

You know, many criticize, Star trek, as failing on some simple things that are inconsistent with the story-line technological advancement. What: they are being jumped by cloacked non-detectable ships, but they communicate with “THE Entity” that can sense their feelings and transform them into rage? (if you had watched that one…). You can check critics reviews on that on the internet, if you do not believe me…

23

your argument holds no ground… Cloaking has been a staple as long as I can remember, and its not going anywhere..

24

Cargo scanners don’t kill people. Cloak-ers do. :rofl: :joy: :rofl:

Friend, not comparable, at all…! :grin:

FGS, what is with you guys? I posed a normal suggestion, and all your argument is: it is like that, and we like it to stay like that. That is not an argument, BTW.

I posted all in good faith, to suggest a better mechanics, and you try to find an answer and quasi-solution to my post, by forcing nonsense into conversation.

Please, be a bit serious, and argument logically your answers.

It is the only constructive way to exchange arguments, not like you do…

25

:joy: It’s not cloaking - for God sake.. please, just read the text before commenting… :rofl:

26

Need to go to bed. That is the reason, will not answer further, tonight…

Good Night, all.:four_leaf_clover:

27

There cannot be a logical and constructive post about cloaky camping, they are never anything more than an emotional response to getting ganked in game.

This topic has been beaten so much, the paste of the dead horse has dessicated into dust, blown away on the wind, and you’re just pounding sand at this point. Search “cloaky camping” on this forum and read all the rebuttals to every single argument you could ever possibly conceive, because the sheep have been bleating about this for over two decades.

In your original post, you specifically mentioned cloaking 14 times, 15 if you include the title. So, if this isn’t about cloaking, why did you not raise any single point in your entire post that didn’t revolve around it? Can you restate your idea without focusing on cloaking mechanics?

1 Like
28

paint it however you want.

Suggestion Regarding Cloaking, D-Scan Mechanics, and New Player Experience

Cloaking was the first effin word you used.

D-scan isn’t an exhaustive tool meant to show decloaked ships.. its a BASIC scanner to show nearby ships or other objects.

2 Likes
29

There is no counter play to blops for PVE players, aside from checking third party tools and running. Just play in hisec where they will lose their ship if they shoot you. Gankers love that because it saves them money on expensive ships.

30

Are worse than NPCs. At least NPCs shoot back.

The counter to a hot drop is a counter drop. Get some friends, put a cyno on your ratting ship, and light the candle if you get dropped on.

1 Like
31

You are always so insightful.

32

Not bothering to give it my usual energy. This topic is old and worn out. I suppose I could make a game out of it, and quote rebuttals from threads almost a decade old from here on, that’s how over-done this topic is.

1 Like
33

Counter play already exists. You check killboards for the characters in systems and prepare a counter trap or a simple combat fitting on your Astero if they are cloaky-campers.

Dishonesty, unfair advantage taking, asymmetric warfare and other mechanics and ways to play that are frowned upon in weaker games are what make EVE great and desireable.

1 Like
34

Players shouldn’t be forced to use out-of-game third-party tools to counter ingame mechanics.
Players also shouldn’t be forced to “prepare a trap” for something that never might come. It burdens a lot more attention and awareness on the one being camped than on the one camping.

Cloaking, especially with the ability to decloak and instantly call in a whole fleet via Cyno, is not very good balanced at the moment. Ingame tools that can pressure cloaky ships (not saying “making them obsolete” or “making them useless”) can and should be taken into consideration.

Doesn’t mean I like the way the OP wants to go, just as a general statement.

2 Likes
35

Including the not uncommon think of the newbros card to hide behind instead of being honest and admitting it is veteran players’ benefit he is seeking. :thinking:

Obligatory:

:ccpguard:

It is everyone else driving on the wrong side of the road not you. :smirking_face:

:face_with_hand_over_mouth:

It’s a well known fact EVE is dead since 1895. :blush:

Also how dare you contradict his narrative with facts?! :smiling_face_with_horns:

Btw CCP already addressed the afk cloaked camping several times but it is never enough for these people, nothing will satisfy them ever. This is yet another of countless threads that evidence this.

1 Like
36

For a relic site? That’s a wee bit unproportional. Especially nowadays where systems can have up to 50 relic sites to chose from next door.

That’s not an issue. You want to make ISK. Making ISK ALWAYS requires you to put more effort into the activity than the people trying to prevent you from doing that. That’s basic gameplay in EVE.

Then get CCP to introduce ingame killboards. Albion offers a developer owned killboard. CCP can do the same. I also do not agree that people should not be forced to use external tools. CCP and EVE take huge pride in its enormous and varied third party tool ecosystem.

37

As a relic site runner I’m at a big advantage because of my covert cloak.

If I don’t enter wormhole space I know exactly who is in system with me and can use that information to know if that other person in system has been flying an Astero to kill explorers the past few days.

I’m at a massive advantage because I can simply decide not to decloak in the site and move on to the next system where that person is not.

Cloaky camping all day long without action is indeed not gameplay, but luckily a few years ago CCP added mobile observatories so you can interact with the people who do leave their cloaked ships online while they’re off to work or asleep.

While mobile observatories are by design only useful against cloaked players who do not pay attention and do not function against people who do pay attention, the players who do pay attention can get caught if you bait them into an engagement, which is your other way to get interaction with cloaked players.

Directional scanners cannot scan all ships. Combat recons are invisible to directional scanners and so are cloaked ships.

There is nothing inconsistent about ‘cloaked invisible ships’ being invisible to directional scanners too.

Next complaint?

Cloaked hunters are equally effective against older players as against newer players, as long as the newer players are past the point that they know what threat a cloaked ship poses.

Newer players in cheaper ships are possibly less affected than experienced players as a Vexor is replaced in less time than someone’s Golem, even if you take into account that the new player flying a Vexor is making less ISK.

This is when you realize space is large and gates exist. Why not move outside the hub? Go a few systems further?

Asymmetric gameplay isn’t dishonest.

Your reasonable solution kills cloaks as defense mechanism.

It destroys the gameplay of launching bombs at an enemy fleet.
It destroys the defense of a cloak to slip through a gate camp.
It destroys the capability of an explorer to stay alive without other defences, because anyone who wants to kill an explorer only has to place a ‘detection device’ wherever explorers are passing by to get free kills.

Please play a bit more and learn how to play before you make such game-changing suggestions that destroy game mechanics that have existed for decades.

3 Likes
38

You misunderstood me. I was explicitly not refereing to the issue the OP has or the ways he wants to address them. I am talking about the general balance of threatening power that cloaking gives a player (or the group behind this player) and the options and effort the targets of said cloaked player has to for actual counterplay.

I totally agree. EVE should have gotten an ingame killboard a long time ago. One with active mechanisms against using it as an insta-intel tool. Like delayed and anonymized kill stats.

39

A cloak only gives a player power if the other player is afraid of them. A cloak cannot directly harm another player in any way, therefore is impossible to balance.

You can’t balance a psychological weapon. Cloaky campers don’t bother me a bit, after all, because I can counter their gameplay by simply playing somewhere else in the game.

1 Like
40

Thats not true and you know it. But I have no intentions to repeat that stupid discussion again.