These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2481 - 2013-10-18 16:18:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!


No, I am not trolling you. But I have to wonder why you wont answer.

Here, I'll help you:

You know you have a hostile cloaked in system because of.....local and either d-scan and warping around or probes.

Local is telling you there is a hostile there. You try to scan him down, but you find no trace of a ship. You conclude (and reasonably so) that he is cloaked.

Local is what causes AFK cloaking. By showing up in a cloaked ship and sitting there for hours, even days on end, I adversely impact your play. Mission accomplished...via local.

Removing AFK cloaking from the game on the other hand would make local's intel without any form of counter. It gives you a distinct advantage over hostiles entering system, and it costs you nothing.

In short, removing AFK cloaking is a buff to local and PvEing.

It is unbalanced.


As much as you think its imbalanced making it more safer to rat or mine in null its far more imbalanced to have invisible non counterable cloaking devices in EvE online. Only a good game knows how to put a yin to every yang. Every game feature must have its counter. In eve the lack of counter to cloaked ship is true sign of failed game balance. Failing to recognize it shows its being abused to counter yet another flawed system in the game.

That broken game feature is what your arguing for. Keep the flaw so we can counter another flaw. With that approach you wont ever fix anything, you will just end up walking around in circles. Maybe if one side of the coin was fixed it would help expedite the fix for other problems in the same area. But I suspect that's not what your aiming for here.

I think Im with Lucas Kell. End of the day similar to all other game balances done over the years this problem will have to be addressed. Till then its pointless trying to convince anyone after 125 pages. Specially to people that stubbornly want to keep on to old broken features to milk the abuse out of it.

Edit: Just to add something small. Its important to recognize the difference between an opinion and recognizing a flaw in the system. Its only your personal opinion that changing cloaked features adds or removes danger to null space and makes it worse or better. But giving cloaked ships a counter is necessity out of game balance.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2482 - 2013-10-18 16:49:42 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!


No, I am not trolling you. But I have to wonder why you wont answer.

Here, I'll help you:

You know you have a hostile cloaked in system because of.....local and either d-scan and warping around or probes.

Local is telling you there is a hostile there. You try to scan him down, but you find no trace of a ship. You conclude (and reasonably so) that he is cloaked.

Local is what causes AFK cloaking. By showing up in a cloaked ship and sitting there for hours, even days on end, I adversely impact your play. Mission accomplished...via local.

Removing AFK cloaking from the game on the other hand would make local's intel without any form of counter. It gives you a distinct advantage over hostiles entering system, and it costs you nothing.

In short, removing AFK cloaking is a buff to local and PvEing.

It is unbalanced.


As much as you think its imbalanced making it more safer to rat or mine in null its far more imbalanced to have invisible non counterable cloaking devices in EvE online. Only a good game knows how to put a yin to every yang. Every game feature must have its counter. In eve the lack of counter to cloaked ship is true sign of failed game balance. Failing to recognize it shows its being abused to counter yet another flawed system in the game.

That broken game feature is what your arguing for. Keep the flaw so we can counter another flaw. With that approach you wont ever fix anything, you will just end up walking around in circles. Maybe if one side of the coin was fixed it would help expedite the fix for other problems in the same area. But I suspect that's not what your aiming for here.

I think Im with Lucas Kell. End of the day similar to all other game balances done over the years this problem will have to be addressed. Till then its pointless trying to convince anyone after 125 pages. Specially to people that stubbornly want to keep on to old broken features to milk the abuse out of it.

Edit: Just to add something small. Its important to recognize the difference between an opinion and recognizing a flaw in the system. Its only your personal opinion that changing cloaked features adds or removes danger to null space and makes it worse or better. But giving cloaked ships a counter is necessity out of game balance.

Why do you insist on arguing that EVE is unbalanced?

Based on this assumption you make, why would the devs change the balance, when clearly they do not agree with your assessment?

Do you think they set it up this way, had no good reason, but wanted the very gameplay you are objecting to?

The assumption that cloaked ships are not balanced, is an opinion. There is no consensus to declare it a flaw, least of all from the devs who would be qualified to make that decision officially.
Note that I am not saying they are ideal game play. I am saying they are balanced, which in no way suggests unbroken or practical. I am saying a game aspect is matching it for it's nature in impacting the play of EVE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2483 - 2013-10-18 16:52:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well I don't consider AFK cloaking as a "counter" to local. It's a counter to a spread out null population, but it in no way counters local.


Of course it is a counter. It makes local less effective. In fact, it turns local against the player trying to engage in PvE. That is, by definition, a counter. It is using the very thing PvE players use to their advantage to their detriment. How is that not a counter?

Quote:
And I don't think local needs a counter.
I think it's a pretty well designed mechanic that every can benefit from, aggressors or defenders.


No, you are quite wrong here. Defenders, aka people already in system, get a distinct advantage they have done absolutely nothing to earn. At least the AFK cloaking guy has done stuff to get to AFK cloak. He has spent time training the skills, spent time getting into the system in question, etc. PvE players have done absolutely nothing to get the benefits of local.

And please don't say holding sov, because local would work for you and provide that advantage whether you held sov or not. And you have trained no skills, you have put down no structures, or anything of value. You have done precisely nothing for that benefit.

Quote:
I think enough people die to show that there isn't a serious imbalance, and ships are well on their way to begin made fairly comparable giving plenty of choice. The removal of local would make T3s and the new SOE ships considerably better over non covops counterparts, as well as unbalancing a range of other mechanics.


TBH I don't think the SoE ships will make into the game as is, or if they do they'll get hit with a nerf bat sooner rather than later.

Quote:
I get that guerrilla warfare is pretty hard at the moment against null blocks, though I personally feel it should be hard to fight 1 vs 10000, but with the new personal structures, that should be made easier too.


A small force should be able to be a PITA to a larger more conventional force, IMO. Right now that just isn't really going to happen aside from AFK cloaking...which sucks. The reason is that many null blocs own large swaths of space, they can PvE in many different systems, or even go to high sec to run missions if all else fails.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2484 - 2013-10-18 17:02:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Again, I'm not asking for his specific location in space, but how do you know he is in your system and cloaked (ignoring legacy deep safes)? What is telling you this information?


Are you trolling me?

That is the problem we have right now. That exact question your asking is the problem!


No, I am not trolling you. But I have to wonder why you wont answer.

Here, I'll help you:

You know you have a hostile cloaked in system because of.....local and either d-scan and warping around or probes.

Local is telling you there is a hostile there. You try to scan him down, but you find no trace of a ship. You conclude (and reasonably so) that he is cloaked.

Local is what causes AFK cloaking. By showing up in a cloaked ship and sitting there for hours, even days on end, I adversely impact your play. Mission accomplished...via local.

Removing AFK cloaking from the game on the other hand would make local's intel without any form of counter. It gives you a distinct advantage over hostiles entering system, and it costs you nothing.

In short, removing AFK cloaking is a buff to local and PvEing.

It is unbalanced.


As much as you think its imbalanced making it more safer to rat or mine in null its far more imbalanced to have invisible non counterable cloaking devices in EvE online. Only a good game knows how to put a yin to every yang. Every game feature must have its counter. In eve the lack of counter to cloaked ship is true sign of failed game balance. Failing to recognize it shows its being abused to counter yet another flawed system in the game.

That broken game feature is what your arguing for. Keep the flaw so we can counter another flaw. With that approach you wont ever fix anything, you will just end up walking around in circles. Maybe if one side of the coin was fixed it would help expedite the fix for other problems in the same area. But I suspect that's not what your aiming for here.

I think Im with Lucas Kell. End of the day similar to all other game balances done over the years this problem will have to be addressed. Till then its pointless trying to convince anyone after 125 pages. Specially to people that stubbornly want to keep on to old broken features to milk the abuse out of it.

Edit: Just to add something small. Its important to recognize the difference between an opinion and recognizing a flaw in the system. Its only your personal opinion that changing cloaked features adds or removes danger to null space and makes it worse or better. But giving cloaked ships a counter is necessity out of game balance.

Why do you insist on arguing that EVE is unbalanced?

Based on this assumption you make, why would the devs change the balance, when clearly they do not agree with your assessment?

Do you think they set it up this way, had no good reason, but wanted the very gameplay you are objecting to?

The assumption that cloaked ships are not balanced, is an opinion. There is no consensus to declare it a flaw, least of all from the devs who would be qualified to make that decision officially.
Note that I am not saying they are ideal game play. I am saying they are balanced, which in no way suggests unbroken or practical. I am saying a game aspect is matching it for it's nature in impacting the play of EVE.


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2485 - 2013-10-18 17:29:43 UTC
Xcom wrote:


As much as you think its imbalanced making it more safer to rat or mine in null its far more imbalanced to have invisible non counterable cloaking devices in EvE online.


Right there is where you advertise your ignorance for everyone following this thread to see. I have expressly advocated counters to cloaks. Change local--i.e. separate local and intel. At the same new probes, maybe a a new ship module to detect cloaked ships. Also, the new intel infrastructure would detect ships not under cloak...so when a cloaked ship passes through gates it would be detected. But you'd have to set up the intel infrastructure...pay for it, defend it, and it would involve trade offs in terms of system upgrades.

In short, you are working from a position of extreme ignorance of what I'd prefer to see in the game. As I said, you should read some of the previous pages.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2486 - 2013-10-18 17:31:32 UTC
Xcom wrote:


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?


OFGS....

You still can't see it?

Right now, the current counter to cloaked ships is....local. It lets you know they are there and to get safe. It tells you when they leave. With a bit of work it lets you deduce that they are cloaked.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2487 - 2013-10-18 17:36:58 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Why do you insist on arguing that EVE is unbalanced?

Based on this assumption you make, why would the devs change the balance, when clearly they do not agree with your assessment?

Do you think they set it up this way, had no good reason, but wanted the very gameplay you are objecting to?

The assumption that cloaked ships are not balanced, is an opinion. There is no consensus to declare it a flaw, least of all from the devs who would be qualified to make that decision officially.
Note that I am not saying they are ideal game play. I am saying they are balanced, which in no way suggests unbroken or practical. I am saying a game aspect is matching it for it's nature in impacting the play of EVE.


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?

The counter, to play with the wording freely, is local.

Cloaking is stealth. Local breaks this, but in so doing makes it trivial.
To balance this, the devs determined that no method of locating a cloaked vessel would exist.

Both are free, and absolute. There is no limit or gap to the reporting done by local.
In theory, this is so the players can see each other, and chat.

Back when local really was just a list of names, this could sometimes happen in null. When the standings got added though, it reinforced the intel nature of the pilot's list. Many alliances now have policies limiting chatting in local, if they accept it on any level.

Because the so-called cloaked pilot is visible to anyone, and known to be in system flawlessly, considering them hidden is a total joke on that level. If you needed to be in a system, and have that actually not known, you cannot be online in the system at all.
This means you can only be logged out, or outside but possibly in range of the system, since local will report you.
Gathering intel not tainted by your opponent being aware you could be watching is impossible in the game. Yes, you could misrepresent yourself to them, and be a spy, but that is espionage rather than stealth.
That is metagaming, since in game mechanics to gather untainted intel do not exist.

At current levels of opportunity, the game is effectively treating players as if cloaking was not an unlocked mechanic. We are automatically warned about all hostile presence, and cloaked ships are in turn impossible to find.

To unlock this, you must permit effort to succeed with both sides, and equally be required for both sides.
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2488 - 2013-10-18 17:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?


OFGS....

You still can't see it?

Right now, the current counter to cloaked ships is....local. It lets you know they are there and to get safe. It tells you when they leave. With a bit of work it lets you deduce that they are cloaked.


Wait didn't you just prove that you can counter local sitting afk cloaked in a system? So local is basically countered by cloaking AFKed in a system leaving cloaking still un-countered.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2489 - 2013-10-18 17:45:56 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?


OFGS....

You still can't see it?

Right now, the current counter to cloaked ships is....local. It lets you know they are there and to get safe. It tells you when they leave. With a bit of work it lets you deduce that they are cloaked.


Wait didn't you just prove that you can counter local with afk cloaking? So local is basically countered by afk cloaking leaving cloaking still un-countered.

cloaking and AFK cloaking are the same thing.
AFK cloaking does not exist. There is no AFK cloaking module, just a cloaking one.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2490 - 2013-10-18 17:50:11 UTC
I yearn for the day when this thread will be looked back as a source of great enlightment.

"REMEMBER what Saint Teckos said at post #6547898! That thy cloak does not endanger thy foes whilst thou are far of the dependencies of thy keyboard!"
"DON'T SPEAK against the WORD of Saint Narrel The Wise! For ALL THINGS implemented are therefore and forever balanced!"

"Now let us read and reflect upon post #10918209 and it's quotes, for they speak of the day when cloaking mechanics will change. FEAR that day, capsuleers. For that is the day when none shall use of the Covert Ops, the Recon, the Stealth Bomber or the Blockade Runner. They will be forever useless. Yes, FEAR that day, capsullers, for that is the day when EVE will die."

May dev forgive me for my trollings.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2491 - 2013-10-18 18:06:21 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Of course it is a counter. It makes local less effective. In fact, it turns local against the player trying to engage in PvE. That is, by definition, a counter. It is using the very thing PvE players use to their advantage to their detriment. How is that not a counter?
Because it does not counter local. People just move next door. They don't suddenly go "Onoes! My diluted local". It doesn't make local any less effective.

Teckos Pech wrote:
No, you are quite wrong here. Defenders, aka people already in system, get a distinct advantage they have done absolutely nothing to earn. At least the AFK cloaking guy has done stuff to get to AFK cloak. He has spent time training the skills, spent time getting into the system in question, etc. PvE players have done absolutely nothing to get the benefits of local.

And please don't say holding sov, because local would work for you and provide that advantage whether you held sov or not. And you have trained no skills, you have put down no structures, or anything of value. You have done precisely nothing for that benefit.
Well no, I am not wrong. It's an opinion. You have yours, I have mine. I don't think cloakers should have free reign to gank at will Why do you deserve to have an overview? You didn't work for it. Why do you deserve to see you cap, armor and hull levels? You didn't work for that. How dare you think you should be able to see when someone targets you! You didn't pay for that! Literally any built in game mechanic is the same.
The short of this is YOU don't like the mechanic. That doesn't automatically make it bad or wrong.

Teckos Pech wrote:
TBH I don't think the SoE ships will make into the game as is, or if they do they'll get hit with a nerf bat sooner rather than later.
Doesn't that tell you something about the balance between cloakers and non cloakers? If a covops combat ship would be too powerful?

Teckos Pech wrote:
A small force should be able to be a PITA to a larger more conventional force, IMO. Right now that just isn't really going to happen aside from AFK cloaking...which sucks. The reason is that many null blocs own large swaths of space, they can PvE in many different systems, or even go to high sec to run missions if all else fails.
You don;t want to be a PITA though, you wan't to be a significant threat. You want to be able to shut down whole systems and gank waves of PVE players and miners. There's a bit of a difference there.
My whole point is if you want to be a PITA, YOU should be a PITA. You shouldn't be able to leave your character around to be a PITA while you aren't playing.
Now that's it. I'm done here, it's just not worth my time. So don't bother asking me anything here you want an answer to, because I simply do not care about this pointless discussion that is going to go nowhere. When CCP officially discuss it, then I'll be back.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Erica Sukarala
Rising Storm.
#2492 - 2013-10-18 20:45:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Erica Sukarala wrote:
Seems to me there is no way to completely defeat AFK cloakys, but you can deter them from messing with you by having friends or backup, doing things as a group, or baiting and/or counter dropping.

Sure there is, I've already stated it.
After x amount of time AFK, you get warped to deadspace (like logging off but not) and cloaked (or left cloaking if you are a covops cloaker) and marked in local as AFK. Upon returning, you get warped back (like logging on) and marked as active. It's essentially the same as logging of AFK cloakers, but it doesn't disconnect them, it doesn't change their client state (windows, etc), it doesn't stop logging their chat, etc.
It would simply be a way of making sure an AFK player is treated as AFK and removed from consideration.

This solves the issue without affecting null mechanics or cloak mechanics and without affecting local.


I meant that a mechanic which forces you to be careful and work in a group isn't really a bad thing.
Your proposal actually puts intel in local chat that is strategically bad to share.

Nomnomnom

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2493 - 2013-10-18 23:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lucas Kell wrote:
Erica Sukarala wrote:
Seems to me there is no way to completely defeat AFK cloakys, but you can deter them from messing with you by having friends or backup, doing things as a group, or baiting and/or counter dropping.

Sure there is, I've already stated it.
After x amount of time AFK, you get warped to deadspace (like logging off but not) and cloaked (or left cloaking if you are a covops cloaker) and marked in local as AFK. Upon returning, you get warped back (like logging on) and marked as active. It's essentially the same as logging of AFK cloakers, but it doesn't disconnect them, it doesn't change their client state (windows, etc), it doesn't stop logging their chat, etc.
It would simply be a way of making sure an AFK player is treated as AFK and removed from consideration.

This solves the issue without affecting null mechanics or cloak mechanics and without affecting local.

I completely support this.
Added: Let there be a visible timer in the upper left. Let it flash red when the timer falls beneath 1 minute.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2494 - 2013-10-18 23:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well I don't consider AFK cloaking as a "counter" to local. It's a counter to a spread out null population, but it in no way counters local.

I would not even say that AFK cloaking is "a counter to a spread out null population." It seems like the opposite, actually. Where you find large numbers of players, that is where the afk cloakers go to park their ships. This causes players to avoid centralization and to leave their system and spread out. If anything, AFK cloaking PROMOTES "a spread out null population."

Proposal 1: That said, I can support a change to local which prevents cloaked ships from seeing local, which labels cloaked ships as cloaked or disconnected, and which auto-warps cloaked ships to deadspace with an afk label after 30 minutes without any key or mouse press on the client. My 100% support on that.

Proposal 2: Also, the ability to see the grid/overview outside a station, even if docked ships are also disconnected from local (like cloaked ships would be). Much like being in a pos, except not free floating.

Proposal 3: Additionally, the loss of all locks for the duration of any kind of cyno field. Hunting is a team effort from start to finish.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2495 - 2013-10-18 23:57:43 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Erica Sukarala wrote:
Seems to me there is no way to completely defeat AFK cloakys, but you can deter them from messing with you by having friends or backup, doing things as a group, or baiting and/or counter dropping.

Sure there is, I've already stated it.
After x amount of time AFK, you get warped to deadspace (like logging off but not) and cloaked (or left cloaking if you are a covops cloaker) and marked in local as AFK. Upon returning, you get warped back (like logging on) and marked as active. It's essentially the same as logging of AFK cloakers, but it doesn't disconnect them, it doesn't change their client state (windows, etc), it doesn't stop logging their chat, etc.
It would simply be a way of making sure an AFK player is treated as AFK and removed from consideration.

This solves the issue without affecting null mechanics or cloak mechanics and without affecting local.

I completely support this.
Added: Let there be a visible timer in the upper left. Let it flash red when the timer falls beneath 1 minute.

Only if people who are afk in station get booted out and warped to a random deadspace pocket when they go afk.

Also all control towers should treat people with afk flags as hostile entities.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#2496 - 2013-10-19 00:21:35 UTC
This has probably been suggested before.

Make cloaks use some kind of fuel. Maybe coolant.

Make them so they only use that fuel if they are activated non-stop for like 15 minutes or something, where they might get heated up and need coolant to cool them down. Jumping through gates or docking while using covert cloaks would nullify the timer, and would restart again.

Make it so that they can not be refueled while active.

Have the fuel last for up to an hour, or some other set time people would find acceptable.

If they are active for a certain amount of time, and run out of fuel, there is a cool down time, like for 5 minutes before they can be activated again.

Just some ideas that popped into my noggin just now.
Dalto Bane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2497 - 2013-10-19 01:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dalto Bane
I, for one, have struggled back and forth on this for many years...

There has been times, I have Hated the ability to AFK cloak. I knew what they were doing. I knew that a cloaked ship could not hurt me while cloaked. I knew that most of the time, they were probably AFK. What I also knew after research, many times with near certainty, who was associated with that character, and what would happen if/when they came to the keyboard, and developed the situation with a conclusion that risk to them and their fleet were minimal.

Oh Yes, there has been times...

Then again, there have been times, I have sat, patiently on a Titan or perhaps a Black Ops ship, and I have absolutely been enthralled by that very same ability. That raw psychological power, that one ship could have such a profound, and violent effect over so many without ever firing a shot. That only one ship, a phantom, unseen to any, given enough time, could lull a group of pilots to a state of complacency and comfort. That when the moment came, and their weakness shown, like a Death Adder's strike, the cyno would light. A beacon of light through the darkness, to show hells wrath where to land.

Many times indeed...

All is working as intended. The perceived omnipotence of the cloak keeps the weak perched in their castle. Remember that AFK cloaking is a two way street, and the sooner some of you see that, the better your situation might be. I hope that bit of advice helps you.

Drops Mic

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2498 - 2013-10-19 01:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Astroniomix wrote:

Only if people who are afk in station get booted out and warped to a random deadspace pocket when they go afk.

Also all control towers should treat people with afk flags as hostile entities.

I can see how people can be confused about the difference between being cloaked in open space, and being uncloaked in a pos at a moon, or being docked at a station at a planet. The latter two are at a limited number of locations without the option to engage, unless they leave their protection and even then immediate engagement is limited only at the exit. Cloaked stealth bombers may leave their protection at any place in space or deadspace and immediately engage without any warning. Those at a pos can see as a ship moves to the force field edges (warning) and those at a station have warning by being at a station and by the time for the aggressor to load grid. They also oftentimes have the option to also dock and thus access the same protection/escape.

In short, stations and pos's are very different from cloaking. Also, a forced undock puts the ship at risk to being engage before it completes the align and warp-out to deadspace (especially with a bubble over it), whereas no decloaking would be imposed on a cloaked ship being warped out to a deadspace location.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2499 - 2013-10-19 02:28:58 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?


OFGS....

You still can't see it?

Right now, the current counter to cloaked ships is....local. It lets you know they are there and to get safe. It tells you when they leave. With a bit of work it lets you deduce that they are cloaked.


Wait didn't you just prove that you can counter local sitting afk cloaked in a system? So local is basically countered by cloaking AFKed in a system leaving cloaking still un-countered.


They counter each other. Hence the current mechanics are balanced. They are sub-optimal, but balanced.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#2500 - 2013-10-19 05:51:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:


So if cloaking is balanced then what is the counter?


OFGS....

You still can't see it?

Right now, the current counter to cloaked ships is....local. It lets you know they are there and to get safe. It tells you when they leave. With a bit of work it lets you deduce that they are cloaked.


It's not a counter Teckos it's the intel tool we have been talking about and cause the cloaked person can use the local as well it's a mutual intel tool. There is no counter to cloaking in eve at the moment. Well sorry... actualy there is. It's kinda hard to use but there is one. Fly your ship closer than 2500m of the cloaked ship and it will decloak Smile but thats it no other counter mechanics for cloaking are available.

oh btw... post #2500 on this topic Lol

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm