Player Features and Ideas Discussion

um I'm confused your responding to someone who was responding to nikk, are you nikk as well?

besides I don't think many people are massive fans of ratting / mining (of course there will be some), we do it to pay the bills.

Not harsh enough, make it so that cyno beacons can only be lit when no other object is on grid.

I Win

lol?
I'm not saying there are no benefits, I'm saying there are MORE DOWNSIDES than benefits for anyone that isn't a cloaker and MORE BENEFITS than downsides for cloakers.
You simply refuse to accept that, and I really don't know why. It's obvious. Everyone would want to be a cloaker if they put your changes in. Even I'd primary as a cloaker if the changes got put in, as it would be pointless to do anything else.
I do grasp the full picture, and that's the problem here. You are looking at YOUR full picture, which only cares about hwo this would affect a tiny subset of players. When you look at how it would work for people with different playstyles, its utterly broken. You would happily destroy other playstyles just so you can benefit. That's not how it works. Balance needs to take into account how a change affects everyone, not just you.

And yes, you should stop smoking crack.

The only argument you have against perma cloaking is that its balanced out by the broken local. The 2 arguments are completely separate and local have been discussed by CCP sense the dawn of time sense the launch of the server. Trying to somehow draw parallels between the two is clearly an attempt of red herring the whole afk-cloak discussion. The whole local mechanic should be taken to a separate thread on as it clearly have bigger impact on the game then just afk-cloaking.

The cov-ops cloaking and the regular cloaking device is one of unique modules that have little drawback if used in conjunction with other methods making them completely imbalanced. A good example would be to have a perma cloaking ability in FPS games. You would be able to cloak up and run around and just wait for an opportunity to present itself. Not a single game I know of gives such a huge advantage to the player other then EVE online. Failing to see its imbalanced nature is like trying to hold on to crap mechanics for the sake of continuing to exploit its flaws.

Cloaking in space doesn't just give you perfect intel. It gives you the ability to scout each belt, gate and pos for all activity plus gives you the combat capability that you can pull out any second killing any unsuspecting target. The parallel to perma cloaked targets in FPS games is just a perfect example.

Also its not the same afking in a station as at least when your in a station your exact location in space is known. In fact undocking could be a risky option for whoever is afking in it. But running around cloaked is completely different as your constantly able to gather intel at any given time without any drawbacks plus launch an attack at any point when you are sure of a victory / kill.

Again, that first assumes that removing AFK cloaking removes actual risk, rather than simply adding diversity to null by opening more space to be used.
Secondly it assumes null reward is currently in line with or above the level of risk, which IMO, it's not considering the higher reward and lower risk in high sec and the massive reward and null-comparable risk of WH space.

It is the one you keep pushing at us like a chewed up shoe though.

What part of: they get intel which includes a heads up regarding cloaked presence
makes you think they can be snuck up on, and pointed?

If you KNOW a cloaked ship is in your scan range, you HAVE been warned about it.
You CAN leave, reship into a fighting craft, and track it down.

At what point do you ignore warnings, and hand out free kill mails? We are assuming a basic level of pilot competence here, not foolhardy decision making.

Stopped the quote here.

It has been agreed upon and established in every debate that both sides agreed upon, that local and cloaking were tied together.

It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.

We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you"
(Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)

You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.

Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.

If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.

When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.

So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.

Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained.

Yes, exactly the same as now. Which I've stated. What I've also said is in the systems with no automated broadcasts, the cloakers can just use d-scan and fly to you totally undetected and unannounced. You brushed this off as basically "they won't do that" which really isn't an assurance. This means:
Some of the time the cloakers are exactly as now. (Automated scanners)
Other times the cloakers have a MASSIVE advantage over all other ship types. (No scanners)

So WHY put a change it that gives a cloaker a massive benefit some of the time, while changing nothing the rest of the time, but that breaks fleet combat all the time (since aggressors will never have intel in a hostile system in fleet combat).
I really don't know how to put it simpler than that.

For the love of God, that you can right that is amazing. You have spent post after post writing in all caps that you MUST ASSUME EVERY AFK CLOAKER IS NOT AFK. You have gone on and on about the threat implied by AFK cloakers.

Simply amazing how you can write something like this given all your previous posts.

And yeah, null rewards are less than WH space...where there is no local. Gee, what an interesting observation.

But "threat" and "risk" are two totally separate things. If I point an empty gun at your head which you don't know is empty, it's no risk, but it is a threat. In order for a threat to be a risk, it would need to have a chance of causing loss. Without being able to determine the chance of loss, you must assume it to be high and react appropriately, HOWEVER that does not make it a risk. It's STILL a threat.

WH space is on par risk wise, if not slightly lower than null sec however, as it has no cynos, has limited ship sizes, and is able to be sealed completely. Add all that to null, and I'm happy to drop local. Without that, you are simply multiplying the risk in null to unreasonably high proportions. So make pos cyno jammers block black ops cynos too, allow a restriction on ship size on gates, and allow us to shut gates down for a random amount of time, and I'll happily agree to drop local.