Player Features and Ideas Discussion

i would say make the cloak module have a time duration so it lasts for say 20 mins.

you would be able to re-activate the module in the last minuet of the cycle so you can stay cloaked for another 20 mins. this isn't to stop people being cloaked for a long time it just stops people being afk and cloaked.

not really fixed because you dont need to d-scan to find people, they can just warp to every hub and belt. so that doesn't help really.

You can link as many posts as you want. I know what I was responding to, so what you took me to mean is your problem, not mine. It's probably hard to you to keep up while you are trying to personally attack every sentence anyone posts in this thread, without tripping over your heavily flawed idea to nuke local.
At the end of the day only 2 things matter:
1. Nikks idea requires the decloaking of a cloaker which you admit to. It makes sense, as what would be the point of detecting a cloaker if you could never decloak them.

2. You linked to a blog highlighting a decloak pulse.

Whether you want to back out now and suggest that neither of those would affect active cloakers is up to you. You brought the subject of decloaking into the discussion. Nothing I have suggested has, as I don't want to affect active cloakers.

So nerf cloaks, but not local. Got it, you want increased safety in null so you can PvE with less fear.

L O L
I don't need to go back since I know what I was referring to. The fact that you don't is a testament to your inability to read. The whole reason I used the term "decloak pulse" is because I read about the "pulse" that decloaks from the link you provided, genius. And you still don't explain why, if you don't support a decloak pulse, why you linked to a blog about it.
You also appear to no longer be debating the point but instead chose to try to twist my words instead, as is common with trolls.

Whatever.

And thanks for helping to keep this on the front page.

As for the last part I've explained why I'd go for something like the linked decloak pulse several times now. You just are not reading my posts apparently. Which makes everything you wrote above laughable.

lol, no problem. People can continue to see that there are several options, and a mass of people who want AFK cloaking to change, while you and Nikk are against it. Or did you think that the mass of links you linked to from different people all requesting the same change somehow prove that AFK cloaking should never be changed?

What's laughable is that you are so set in your idea that anyone with a genuine dislike for it can't possibly have a point, they must have simply not understood you. Let's be clear. I understand your points, and I still disagree.

Right, cos you responses are all on topic right?
It's not that you are now arguing purely by attacking my posts or anything. It's not that you are telling me what I'm saying.
And It's not like several times throughout this thread myself and others have shown how you like to misquote and misrepresent what others are saying.
I tell you what, if you have nothing constructive to add, then don't bother posting.

So what stops a cloaked vessel arriving in a system and warping straight to anoms? If the system has no intel, then the cloaker has an advantage of not showing up until they arrive. If there is intel, then they are no worse off than they are now and the same as any other ship. So cloakers benefit more from the lack of intel than a regular ship right?
Since a regular ship will show on d-scan and a cloaker won't, a system with no intel would be the equivalent of wormhole space, while a system with intel would be the equivalent of current null. So cloakers get a benefit while other players simply have to do more to gather intel.
Also, since players in local can be seen on the new intel, the removal of local isn't solving the AFK cloaker issue, the probes are, so (other than the fact that you don't like it) why would the same principle not work without having to change local?
Sure, it can be fitted to any ship, but you would need to firstly think to fit that, secondly free up a slot, and thirdly be willing to put your ship into a mode which disables all of its tank while you look at a solar system map, not looking at your ship. I'd hardly be putting a carrier in that situation.

As for collateral effects, since only the sov holder would gain full intel there's still the issue of an intel imbalance between a defender and an aggressor in sov combat. Simply brushing that of as "they'll adapt" is not a good enough answer to a pretty large concern.
I'd also question again, why would anyone use a non-covops ship for solo or small roams? They don't have any benefits. T3s are pretty powerful, and the new SOE ships are supposedly going to put them to shame combat wise, so why would I want to pick a non-covops ship, when I can use a covops and take advantage of being invisible to some systems?
And the counter to a covops ships would require the module you stated, plus the hunter to put his ship into "no tank" mode, meaning in order for someone to successfully hunt a covops, 2 character would be needed. Again I ask, why should covops be treated as special? Why should they need specific setups to deter?

On a side note, I'd also ask why leave local in as a chat channel? It may as well be removed, since talking on it would just be granting free intel, so much like WH space, local chat would become unused. IMO the whole channel could go, since it would never stop being minimised.

Actually, no, this is wrong.

If this is sov null, and the owning powers have installed BPs for friendlies to use, then the locals can use passive sensors which are active by default.
If the owners do not install BPs, then the local pilots are well advised to toggle on their active sensors. Yes, they will be giving a direction to anyone using passive detection, but they get intel which includes a heads up regarding cloaked presence.

A cloaked threat will want to target and remove the BPs which are anchored. This is likely to draw defenders out to stop them, or at the very least warn locals that trouble is present.


Actually, that's not right either.

The intel from the BPs is one sided. It only works for the friendly pilots, while hostiles see only a direction towards the BP itself. The hostile knows they are standing in view of the BP if they can see it, but they have no idea who else is using that BP to see them, if any.
Intel is localized. The BP itself does not collect intel, it just broadcasts the wave encrypted energy readable by friendly ships, so if a hostile gets in the range of the same BP as a local pilot, the local pilot can then see them when they approach.
Local pilots would probably be encouraged to relay intel onto their channels, but as human beings they might forget, or simply not bother.

As to the hunting module use, if in conjunction with the overview upgrade idea, then the carrier can have all of it's defenses up and running, and simply toggle on it's active sensors.
See a cloaked ship in range? Then maybe having a hunter equipped vessel is more practical for the task, but if you like sending your carriers out unescorted, sure it can fit the hunting module directly.
Once the carrier uses the module to lock onto the cloaked ship, that ship is no longer cloaked.
Once that ship is no longer cloaked, the carrier can shut down the hunting module, and activate anything else it likes.

Frankly though, I would expect an unescorted carrier to be trying to hide, and be using a cloak instead.