Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Right because you did not write:



Then you go on to compare them. In fact, now you are back to your refrain "cloaks aren't stations" meaning that cloaks provide similar saftey as a station, that is a comparison.

This is full of holes. First off, stations are NOT out of the play area. Stations are where considerable economic activity take place which is part of game play. In fact, a very important part of game play. Yes, jump clones require some training…but so do cloaks. In fact, to use a cloak effectively it likely requires more training. And yeah, jump clones had to “get to” the other stations. But so did that cloaked ship at a safe scaring the bajeebers out of you via local.

Cloaked ships have to take gates, they have to decloak at some point, and then they are vulnerable. A PvE-er in sov null can get away literally 100% of the time, no matter what. They can also earn ISK while doing this. A cloaked ship can't hurt anyone and can't earn ISK.

I await with baited breath your disclosure of this method of affecting the game (killing anyone or earning ISK) while cloaked.

Wait... So you are back to claiming that local prevents you from being targeted or having any modules activated on you? Are you sure?

Or is it that an active and aware pilot saw you and decided to just leave rather than deal with you?


Yes, ships not using their cloaks, as happens when they take gates or decloak for some other reason, are no longer safe. That's their choice, and it's not something that can be influenced by anyone else.

That is obviously not the reload timer I'm writing about. It is also too short.

"Casual scanning" is not a thing. Hunter/camper ships are usually small and/or have a high sensor strength, making them hard to scan down. Specialized hulls, equipment and implants need to be used and a whole array of skills needs to be trained for the usual scanning effort to be effective.

Point was, unlike a cloak, local only allows an active and aware pilot the opportunity to take action. Local provides no safety on it's own. The safety a cloak provides requires no action whatsoever on the part of the pilot and is infinitely effective.

The claim of local providing safety is a hollow, hyperbolic lie. The safety comes from the action of the pilot and is a result of constant vigilance from an active and aware pilot.

The claim of safety under a cloak is completely accurate, though it can be compromised at will by the pilot. To benefit from and maintain that safety requires nothing at all on the part of the pilot.

Now who is drawing a false equivalency? Yes, you have to be active and watching local to obtain the benefits. No, you do not have to have the same thing with a cloak. There is a reason for that, the reason is quite simple. The ratter, miner, PI alt, etc. are all going to be gathering isk and/or resources and putting them into the game's economy. The guy sitting cloaked at safe is not irrespective of whether or not he is at the keyboard. This is a significant difference.

Local allows the ratter, miner, etc. to exploit the resources of his space with considerably reduced risk so long as he is watching local. The only way to bring in the specter of risk in to this situation is via AFK cloaky camping (note even this not real risk, hence the use of the term specter). Even an pilot who is active and in a cloaking ship does not cause the risk to go up in this situation. The ratter who is aware and watching local will simply warp to safety. There is no substantial risk in this scenario. Now the pilot who is not paying attention he is increasing his risk.

As for your last claim that is true if we set aside all the "setup costs". The training, the ship/module costs, getting through all the gates to get to the system he intends to camp, etc. If we simply assume that the AFK cloaker has magically appeared at his safe spot cloaked, then yes, there is a very high degree of safety.

Three points:

1. Why in the Hell did you let him get there? Seriously you go on about taking space and the effort of dozens even hundreds of players to take the space, but apparently you can't be arsed to try and stop these guys from getting through? Why aren't you out there camping gates? Setting up bubbles and cans, etc.

2. Yes, he is safe, but only so long as he does nothing. Cloaks are specifically to give the advantage of initiative to the pilots who fly ships with cloaks. And that benefit comes at the cost of DPS and tank.

3. Given 2, you need to find a solution to a cloaky camper in your system. A number of such solutions have been given, and it is not our problem you refuse to use them.

No Mike, my point was that you routinely ignore these "set up costs" because they do not suit your narrative. Even now you are trying to dismiss them as irrelevant. The justification for the degree of safety is for the degree of limitations it puts on a player who opts to maintain that degree of safety.

As for point 2 you completely missed the point. The point is the cloak gives the player the advantage of initiative at the expense of other features of combat ships such as DPS and tank. Comparing a combat ship to non-combat ships is...OMG a false equivalency.

If you rat in a group, or at least in a standing fleet you are taking back control. It is NOT our problem you completely cede ownership of your system to a single dude who is cloaked and most likely not at his keyboard.

BTW, I just ran through several systems with hostiles who have been there for days. I did my business in each system quickly and efficiently and fit my ships to give me the best chance of success. That is the difference between you and me. I don't see a hostile in local and start scrambling around for the pacifier.

Since it has been about 2 years since this thread was started I have come to ask a couple of questions:
1. What natural counter modules does the Cloak have? Now, nearly every module in the game has a direct or indirect counter module: ECM has SEBO/ECCM, SEBO has damps, tracking computer has tracking disruptor, bombs now have DEFENDER MISSILES (previously the most worthless investment of SP imaginable). Combat probes have implants and ECCM to make you harder to scan (or cloak). Afterburner has webs and tangentially targetpainters/neuts, MWD has scrams and webs and neuting. So on, so forth. But what module directly counters the effects of a cloak? Infact when fitting a covops cloak you aren't even required to uncloak to warp so provided you can somehow remain bubble immune then you should be able to cloakywarp anywhere.

What *module* directly counters the covops cloak? At least the regular cloaks are balanced using a variety of rather draconian penalties but most significantly they must uncloak to speed up and warp. Even BLOPS can't warp cloaked as previously discussed.

2. Cynos. Cynos I think in the interest of balance should suffer from being classified as an 'aggressive' weapon and be forced to wait out decloak timers. This is 5s for a covops boat or up to 30s for a non-covops. Covertop Cyno already has the additional benefits of not appearing on local and having a VERY short cycle time so I don't think it should be exempt from this penalty. The covop cyno in particular is a 100% offensive module designed for hotdropping.

Why propose these fixes in this unread, dead thread that is a containment cesspool so the devs don't have to parse any more posts on this topic? Well I guess I'm saying so that at least the opinion was voiced at least once. When the hot death of the universe comes at least I will have said my (probably) final piece on cloaking as a weapon. I still stand by what I said at the start of this thread, but, I can't pretend that I don't think there are problems.

Maybe the Devs don't see the problem you see. The issue is you want to increase your safety without any effort--i.e. you want CCP to increase your safety. That is antithetical to the game's core philosophy. You want increased safety? Well go out there and do what you need to achieve that, stop whining to CCP to do what you can do for yourself.