If we were to go with the probes idea, they could be balanced by the cloaker being able to run silent as it were, by turning off all his mods.

Which again is balanced with the fact that the cloaked guy can pick and choose his battles, and as such can engage boats he know will pop before there's any chance of any real response, unless everyone has at least one guy along with them for everything they do. If you think, you know how realistic this is over an extended period of time.

And it wasn't a nerf for cloaks, it was a nerf for AFK cloaks. Oh dear, they couldn't just leave the client sitting around for 23.5/7 and choose f.ex one hauler or two a day at random. I'm literally crying.

It's my prediction, and I'm fairly certain my prediction is going to be fairly accurate, so I'm sticking to it.

Well, that's exhausted all the ideas, then.

Delayed local (which I've started seeing popping up again) will heavily favour the ganker gangs, that's going to take a toll on carebear population. Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population. Removing local will make roaming gangs of noncloakable ships actually slightly more powerful than delayed local would (since they can take more time lining up their gank), never mind cloak-capable ships. That'll devastate the carebear population. And replacing local with a system with shootable modules which gives local info based on standings isn't anywhere near being accepted by gankers.

So, what else is there?

Those aren't extreme conclusions, those are conclusions I predict will be wholly accurate.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot then, what are your predictions for what will happen in the scenarios outlined?

Which is balanced by the fact the locals could have a trap set, or be using their noodle and ratting in PvP fit ships etc. etc.

It was an idea for fuel usage, which is a nerf to cloaks no matter how you try and spin it. It also didn't address the cause for AFKing.

In other words, conjecture.

I wouldn't know, I don't have all the facts to base any conclusions on. We don't have any idea what package of changes, would replace local.

I would say Ingvar Angst's idea is probably the most balanced idea yet on the subject of AFKing. How it would work in principle, is again hard to predict. But as far as AFKing is concerned, it ticks all the right boxes.

Cloaker-less local will definitely make every roaming gang a cloak-capable ship, and will take a toll on carebear population.

People are ******* lazy.

I don't really give a flying **** what it was, as long as it was something which made camping a system for an extended period of time something you actually worked at.

Ingvar Angst's idea? The remove cloaked ships from local idea?

Ok.

Huh? Deactivating doesn't take long, and if you're activating the modules then you still want to let people who are actually paying attention to get some sort of warning. Or are you saying that this is once again giving carebears too much power?

Where's the logic in that? They're cloaked and they don't show up in local, so how should they be destroyed?

You're breaking wormhole covert intel gathering, where even the knowledge of a cloaked ship in the hole changes behaviors.

Because they're in a roam, and thus they have to use the gates and attack targets GÇö otherwise they won't even be able to leave their own system. The longer they dilly-dally, the more time they give to the enemy to get an estimate of how many of them there are and to set up a trap to kill them when they uncloak.

Scout: RED FLEET INBOUND
FC: How many?
Scout: i dont know they were moving fast and i could only count 20 before they warped, could be 100-500 people
FC:CCP fail removing local

So they'll have to find some patience if they manage to get trapped in a system, boo hoo. They can still pick and choose their fight with a much higher impunity than non-cloakers.

I say that 100% accurate intel and safing up even when someone is not even at there computer is even worse.

GǪand they are also at much more risk than they were before, and still easy to spot and avoid for those who want to.

Again: stop assuming the attacker has (or would have) all the advantages under such a scheme.

Yes, they're regular heroes they are, what with the huge risk they're taking.

I'm not assuming they have all the advantages, I'm saying they have a lot of them, and if they're non-******** they'll be pretty damn hard to catch and kill.

Who? The defenders or the attackers?

or even address, why such a counter is needed.

Context is hard.

Cloaked Camping. Allows a system to be camped with an absence of risk to the campers until the exact moment when they can not be countered.

GǪand disconnecting cloakers from local would neatly solve that little problem. It would also allow for surprise attacks (in both directions), unlike the current situation.

Deactivate unnecessary modules, jump in, behave exactly as before. Not seeing problem.

Not really. In Theory Maybe but in Practice it is heavily in favor of the party who can go AFK. The Trap setters can not as they need to be active spring it when the Cloakers Decide to Attack. Which is whenever they want.

The Boring to Fun Ratio (The most important balance tool) is skewed heavily in the invisible guys favor.

Local removal while nice should introduce mechanics similar to Submarine Warfare which on the Boring to Fun Ratio sits.

Mining : ****************************************************************|******** : Epic Fleet Fight

Quite High Up.

You don't seem to understand how covert ops don't have any unnecessary modules because they dont have the cpu and grid for it.

Not entirely true when it comes to intel gathering. All you need active for that is cloak and (maybe) probe launcher. Probes have the drawback of being scanable though, and if you are trying to keep your presence completely hidden they are a risk, small risk if careful, but mistakes happen.

Intel officer does not need any other modules active while actually gathering intel. For getting in/ out of position maybe, but even then if you actually need (for example) a MWD then you have probably been "made" and have blown your chance at being undetected already.

The only issue I have with AFK cloakers (and not a major one for me) is the ability to hot drop. Looked at from one way, it does seem to give a cov-ops ship the ability to punch far out of it's weight class. Bombers/ recons can be dangerous by themselves if used correctly, add the possibility of an entire fleet dropping on you and that could be a little OTT.
Naturally at this point it's no longer one player that is involved, but several, which requires a little more planning and preparation. However BO/ cap alts are not hard to come by either, and can also be kept AFK (or logged) until needed. I am curious whether the whines would be as prevalent if measures were taken to restrict the use of hot-dropping as a valid tactic? If all you had to deal with was one ship and one pilot, rather than the potential for a fleet, would AFK cloakers really be that threatening?

Not only so I say, so it will be. If you haven't noticed, this is a game in which every ******* kind of leverage that can be used to gain the upper hand, can and will be used. Not showing up in local is a huge ******* advantage, and that will be abused to **** and back.

This is so predictable it's not even funny. And your attitude is precisely why I say "ok, remove local/remove local for cloaked ships then", just so I can point to these threads and say "hey, guy, so you remember when I said something would happen if these changes happened? Yeah, what up, *****."

So you say, with yet more conjecture.

Okay, let's dissect this, then. Who do you think afk cloaking works against?

Anyone who uses local as an intel tool.