Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, we have about, what, half a dozen or so peeps that overall are in favor (mostly because they engage in the practice themselves) of no changes in any form to afk-cloaking issues, and anytime peeps speak up in any way about doing something to alter it, they set in like a pack of rabid wombats against it.

Overall, most entertaining reading material, I must say.

Mind if I ask you guys to play devil's advocate for a few days, and possibly provide some things if you were going to endorse changes in regards to it, what you would propose?

What "problem" are you trying to fix, and why is it a problem.


Ships that can warp cloaked either have a 5s delay between decloaking and targeting, or are virtually tankless frigates.
If the then light a cyno, they're immobile.

If you can't escape in the 5s+lock time it takes to lock you, or kill/escape a stationary stealth bomber, why should CCP break the game to humor you?

Here's a hard counter for any single cloaky camper:
Stick one of these near your spider-webbed mining fleet, and you have all the defense you need. The ability to alpha a stationary bomber off the field, or trivially escape any other cloaked ship. (Many other ships will work just as well or better).

[Tornado, Ganking T2]

Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script

1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L

Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
[Empty Rig slot]

The best possible short (and long) term solution is for people to change their own gameplay to suit the existing (and likely continuing).... (not even there) unpleasantness?

Seriously. Just fly your internet spaceship. You can get a new one.

At the risk of getting into a fitting spit wad fight, I'd drop a gyro for a DCU II is feasible. Give yourself a bit of tank in case they do open a cov cyno and a few bombers/recons/t3 land on grid. Of course, if they have t3 you may have an issue alpha-ing them off the field, but all the SBs and even the recons will likely go. Kill the falcon first.

I have also suggested ratting in PVP fitted ships in a group. 4-5 guys in PVP ships would mop up any SB heavy blops gang foolish enough to engage. Maybe a bunch of T3s might drop in, but if you use T2 PVP ships they aren't nearly as expensive as blinged out ratting ships or carriers that many BLOPs gangs are looking for.

Need us to do anymore thinking for you Pelea?

1. He can't be 10 meters near you and cloaked...nor 11 or 12 meters.

2. The point is that the cloaked player is not a threat. There is a potential threat. What is bothering you is uncertainty.

Removing uncertainty from this game is antithetical to this game.

No, I have no problem with cloaky campers, I just don't like the afk cloaky camper :P Be paying at least minimal attention... I want to keel you with that 'ratter' I'm flying :P

I have no problems, and as for Ruby's 'question'... I've yet to see one worth responding to.

There are a few integrated issues involved with afk cloaking and part of it is the local channel. Much of the argument around afk cloaking stems from the local channel as it is this that lets others know danger may have just entered the system pretty much instantly and usually before they can get to you should you decide to warp to a safe location. Most of the arguments against any kind of change to the cloaking is because it is considered a counter to that advantage.

For me I have two issues with the way it works.

The first is that it is the only situation outside of being docked where the cloaked person has complete immunity. Now it could be a bi product of watching too much Star Trek, but for me personally, if someone is hanging around your system cloaked I would love the opportunity - however that might manifest in the game - to go and hunt down that pain in the ass cloaker in system. I do not know personally by what method would be "fair or balanced" to do so, but I think that making them essentially invulnerable unless they leave the system just seems against the idea of ship battles and combat that CCP wants us to engage in.

The second is that I do not think it should be possible to cause disruption + being immune in the game while they are not in attendance of the game. Alt tabbing, watching television and watching TV while mining etc all require some form of returning to the game, for the most part to ensure that you do not die yourself. There is risk involved. A cloaked person in system has no risk - ever. Sure you can sit in a station indefinitely, but while you sit in the station nothing actually happens. I find it a little silly that you can sit in a ship, cloak in a random -0.7 security system - which is supposed to be dangerous - and go and to the Cinemas and have a night out with your partner all with the complete and full knowlege that your ship will be unharmed and sitting in space where you left it. It seems to be the only in game system that can do that short of being docked. The only other in space "Safe spot" is inside a POS - and while you are at the cinemas I can organise an attack on that POS if I had the resources making that safe place a "relatively" safe place, not a guaranteed safe spot, which is what the cloaking mechanism currently allows.

I do not know what would be the best changes to make this situation more balanced, whether changes to local channel are in order or whatnot, but I do not think that the current way that it works is very effective from a game play point of view.

I'm not sure why you asked why. But to respond to my post 98. I like it because it adds flavour and the uncertain element to the game. Also the other why answer to that post is, because actually knowing the mechanic that's being used, shows you why your request is bad for the game.

As far as 100% blocking you is concerned, you're wrong. They CANNOT do a thing to you whilst cloaked and/or AFK. The one stopping you, is you.

They are not exploiting anything. Again, point me to where CCP have deemed this an exploit and we'll talk about that.

Why do they do that? Well as you've still not wished to know the mechanic being used, you still will not understand why they do this. You've nearly hit the nail on the head, when saying they can't own miners. Because what happens when some neutral arrives in a system?

But where do you think you are exactly? Null is already safer in many respects than high sec, what you are after is for it to be totally safe. That's not going to happen.
But again, if you wish to not play then that is your choice. No one except CCP, can force that choice upon you.

So do you want to know the mechanic being used? Or are you simply going to bury your head in the sand and continue to blame someone cloaked and AFK?

Why is your reaction to suggestions that people use, always poor and what looks like you not wishing to learn?

You are in null sec space, it should be risky. It should actually be riskier than it is now. But you can take precautions and you can mitigate much of the risk. But no matter where you are in this game, you will not be able to mitigate all the risk.

Do you want to know what is funny here?, Nerfing cloaks will not actually stop people AFKing, because you are not addressing the mechanic being used.

So to summarise and clarify the OP:

He wants as massive nerf to active cloakers, forcing them to jump through arbitrary steps to unreliably maintain a cloak.

And the reason for doing this is to reduce the uncertainty, risk, and effort required on his part even further.

No.