Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Still releasing something you know will break things is bad practice. And even though the 6 week cycle gives you the ability, doesn't mean you should spent your development time in making a bad change just to do it. Why not spend the time in making a well balanced fix tat will be good for all of eve instead of just throwing stuff to the wall and see what sticks

Sorry, but you are way off the mark here.

I've played for a good 5-6 years by now and I still only have this one guy. I'm not defending AFK-cloaking in any way, but I won't let you break cloaking just because you have a non-issue that you just cannot seem to learn to play around. Yet you want to make a "fix" without any idea how it might affect other things using the same mechanic.

If you want to fix "AFK-cloaking" then do it right, not half-ass it and break other parts of cloaking .

So.... We should ramp up the difficulty on nullbears, take away their local and remove ALL cynos from popping up on the overlay for anyone to warp to that not on grid when the cyno is lit. Got'cha.

Wander
You are not really the choir I am preaching to. Shall we simply agree to disagree?

Morrigan
In its simplest form then. A citadel module exists. When activated and after a certain delay:

On screen message to cloaked ship: "You have been targeted by a decloaking device. Recalibrate cloak [right click on module to select recalibrate] within 60...59...58 seconds [timer] or cloak will deactivate.

Failure to right click causes cloak to deactivate. Ship is no longer both afk and cloaked.

It might still be speed tanked or whatever, but that does not concern me.

Edit
It could be simpler of course. But the ammunition type duration limitations for the cloaking module have already been mentioned (a cloaked player needs to manually restart cloaking device after it has reloaded. So would be without a cloak during reload and until module has been reactivated). So no need to rehash that point.

Teckos
If catching an active cloaker is not part of OA function, then it is needlessly complex.

A simple Decloaking Array (DA) is a much better fit.

A ship targeted by the DA becomes uncloaked unless the pilot intervenes to avoid being decloaked.

Then normal scanning procedures can follow. Followed by normal hunting routines.

A DA also avoids Evelore awkwardness inherent to any OA suggestion (why would local be transferred to player control in null-sec, but not low and high sec? Why would local be transferred to player control in null sec, but gates would not be transferred to player control in null-sec?).

A DA also avoids the awkwardness of giving the perception of depopulated space inherent to transferring local to player control.

Its not good that it looks like no one is playing Eve in the region you might be in.

Edit
Transferring local to player control also only masks the implicit threat afk cloaky campers represent by creating a far bigger implicit threat issue (remembering that implicit threat is defined as "a pretty big psychological effect").

It simply is not a viable contribution to the afk cloaky camping issue.

When it games to game mechanics vs. game lore, the lore will always lose. The lore will be rewritten if needed

Stealth bombers are also paper thin and against a heavier class of ship with similar numbers will find that DPS no longer near dreadnought DPS as your ships are alpha'd off the field. My point was that if a group is being driven off one-by-one by a cloaking gang...they are doing it wrong.



Fuel is a horrible idea. Very few have suggested simply removing local. Lots have suggested simply removing AFK cloaking...typically people more interested in PvE than anything else.

And no it does not turn intel into a commodity, but something that is now...permeable? That is, it is something that can be influenced by both sides much more directly as well as indirectly. This is a good thing because it "opens up many new strategic, logistical, and social opportunities." Balance might be an issue, but that is always the case with new mechanics and so long as the Devs iterate on the new mechanic things can be fixed, improved and so forth.

So what? So a ship or two goes down, and depends on the full context of the situation.

One thing that always annoys me about the anti-cloakers is:

1. They shift gears between active cloaking pilots and AFK pilots as if the two situations are analogous.
2. They assume perfect of very advantageous conditions for the cloaked pilots.

Let me explain that last one, suppose you think you have prey and you can "gank him fast" but he is much tankier than you though and suddenly a dictor lands and drops a bubble on you guys followed by a bunch of guys pouring in through a cyno....you guys are humped. If you try to burn out of the bubbles with a mwd...uh-oh your sig blossoms. If you stay and duke it out you might take a ship or two but your entire gang will likely be toast.

Anti-cloak posters always end up in the same place with the same basic thrust to their arguments: cloaking is an "I win button". Of course that is total and complete Bravo Sierra because cloaking ships are rarely doctrine ships. About the only instance of that was the Imperium's use of stealth bombers and PIGs to RF structures back when that was a Thing™. Even then those gangs ALWAYS ****** off when even the slightest whiff of hostile resistance showed up.

This notion that cloaking ships are too powerful just does not stand up to the laugh test. In the right context they are powerful...but that is true of just about every ship in the game.

"It is hugely disproportionate as it allows an afk pilot to significantly impact on the behaviour of many active players"
Provide your factual data please, otherwise I will assume you don't actually know how many people AFK cloaking impacts

"It is not duplicable by the average player with x-month seniority"
how do you know who goes AFK while cloaked and who doesn't?

"The afk subscription is invariably funded by ingame resources."
Actually a subscription is funded by money... You know M-O-N-E-Y. Even a plex was created through someones M-O-N-E-Y. Thus an account, AFK or not, is not funded by ingame resources, it funded by, well...real life funds.

"It gives 4/4 invulnerability (undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe)"
You sir don't know how cloaking works. This is a simple fact. Cloaking only provides protection while in a safe up spot, which must be generated by a player being active, AND they must not be caught while in the process of moving to said safe spot, You can't force someone to undock, You can however force someone to uncloak. Also you can be totally 100% safe by doing the exact same thing with duel propped rigged out ships that fly in one direction for eternity, and by the time you scan them down, they already move grids.

"It discourages ingame activity and ultimately impacts on player retention (the average x-month old player quitting after y-months)."

Please provide factual data, that this has a serious impact on new players, which from PERSONAL experience, most new players don't explore low or null sec. Which is really the only place that it seems to have the most impact.

"
Its sole redeeming feature is how it impacts on other forms of afk behaviour. This suggest that measures targeting afk cloaky camping should target the afk component and that an audit should primarily consider other forms of afk behaviour.

The best way to resolve the afk cloaky camping issue is by introducing a mechanism that will decloak a ship unless a pilot actively intervenes to remain cloaked. Mechanisms of this type include giving cloak modules a charge requirement, or introducing a citadel based module that will decloak a vessel unless the cloaked pilot actively intervenes."

Can I have a module that will force ships out of their pos bubbles without having to wait through a 24 hour reinforce timer?

Teckos
No. Everything does not. Afk cloaky camping fills downtime between activity with other alts on that subscription. 0 opportunity cost of managed well.

0 opportunity cost is inherent to the afk portion. IF ATK, then opportunity cost is incurred.

Maria
You do not need the data. The Devs do and they have NDA access. But it is easy enough to replicate. Go to steam gauge to read generalized player characteristics (how often/long do the play a game they have bought on steam), then correlate with the specifics for Eve online to see if it corresponds. Eliminate trial accounts by deducting median from the average. Bobs your uncle.

You can report this post if you like. It sorts under rumourmongering and should be deleted.