Quote:Ah, so when you don't like something, it's a bug.
Yes, the CD abuse bug is a bug. That has nothing to do with not liking it - it is de facto a bug, as you are not able to target something with weapons you can not see. People chasing a ship that actually managed to cloak away simply have to deal with the fact that they didn't manage to bring the ship down earlier. Abusing a bug instead is just the worst.
Quote:I suppose it's threads like this that prove you cant crowd-source good ideas.
You can. You just have to face the fact not everyone has outfleshed ideas.
Quote:Then again, how the current system is organised is damaging enough already. To buff a cloak when it is still clearly the best option to avoid interactions and, in the case of those with no time limit, infiltrate an area to begin a RP interaction without ever having to expose oneself to the threat of retaliation should that interaction be poorly received, would be insulting.
There are only a few of those individuals and they can be regulated by their faction leaders. Aside from that, what's the problem with that? Get a Cloak Disruptor if you desperately want to RP with people that are, uhm, careful? If they use the cloak to annoy people, it will be regulated once you the faction leader about it. In fact, you don't need a cloak to initiate similar situations. Just have a battleship scanner or use the system chat to annoy people. The point of people avoiding certain kinds of interactions is simple: They want to survive instead of getting roflstomped. There is actually nothing wrong with that.
Quote:A better change might be to buff cloaks so that they all have unlimited duration, while moving it from the CM slot to the mine slot. That actually solves a lot of problems, at least as far as those ships with mine slots to begin with. Then, having one would be an exchange of offensive firepower for defensive ability, instead of the preferable (and highly priced) option as it is now. This would also eliminate most of the issues with the CD "bug", as they would simply be wasting CDs, because you would never uncloak unless they would have a cloak disruptor close at hand. Such a change would also put the cloak-equipped ship at a combat disability, which would reduce the effectiveness of cloaking briefly to avoid fire, then decloaking and continuing the engagement, which is something I have experienced previously on my incursions into systems that have now been renamed. As for capital ships, they are already part of any standard capital ship loadout, and transports already have to deal with a justifiable cargo trade-off.
That is weird, as it would mean every ship and their mother are suddelny, lore-wise, strong enough to keep the cloak running. Every lolwut would fly around cloaked permanently to the point where they can ambush everyone. Not everyone is focused on mine-loadouts, so those with torpmissiles will have easy game, actually. Not only that, but more than half of the playable ships would need to be edited to get cloak-support - as you said, they would need the mine slot. So, they would need to get that slot, because otherwise, you have a big array of ships that can't use the cloak. Why would you use that, then, while everyone else can fly around cloaked and ambush you? Also, you would have weird ships that use mines instead of cloaks, like gunboats/cruisers/battleships with mines. I'm not really sure if it would be possible to do that only with snubs, as you suddenly would have some ships that use the cloak as CM (the bigger ones) and other ships using cloaks as mines (snubs). It's probably somehow doable, but I guess fixing the CD bug AND the implementation of a unique CD to be the only CD that can prevent ships from cloaking would be easier, regarding what you suggested.
Nope, seriously, the limits are a must-have to regulate, otherwise you would only hear the cloak sound.
