But shouldn't that be ok, because the purpose of the cloak is to try to blend with the surroundings. The fact that there's lighting that helps the scout just means that there are places where it's easier to blend with the environment. We should also acknowledge that it should obviously be harder to see a cloaked scout who's farther away, it's much easier to see them close up, which is good because if you're looking you should be able to see them come in CQC with you.

It should be noted that all these "problem areas" are from a good distance and out in the open. The cloak should be good at crossing such areas, mostly because scouts are weak out in the field and can't really do much at great distances, excelling more in CQB. Had Judge been closer, I don't think he'd have much trouble seeing either scout.

Also it is difficult to see cloaked scouts when distracted (fighting another enemy, not paying attention, etc). That's the point. As you saw in his still frames, you can still see the scout if you know you're looking for it.

In the second one, it's a light blue, translucent shimmer on a near identical background, of course it's hard to see (from a good distance as well I might add). If it was a red shimmer, it would be hard to see on the desert map, green shimmer on grassy maps. Colors blend.

Granted there may be visual rendering bugs or something (which of course should be addressed), but I think overall theses are poor examples of the cloaks faults.

In my opinion, it is a nice counter balance to the fact that cloaks are broken in the other direction as well.

For people who are unhappy about cloaks being used for CQC... well okay, then where should they be good for? Surely, for sneaking across open areas.
But I've gotten nailed in a cloak by an RR from 50m out, many times, with noone else around.
(So they clearly ID'd me alone, rather than being a lucky spot while looking around someone else.)

And there's the issue that there is no difference in shimmer when moving slowly. Moving slowly gives same visibility as sprinting. This is broken: there should be less, if you're walking rather than sprinting.

The daylight invisibility counters those bugs. Thank goodness, because otherwise, it would be almost useless IMO.

So, if daylight invisibility is not a design feature but a cloak bug... then it is critical that CCP fix those other negative bugs about the cloak, before they take away this positive bug.

As one of "those people" who argues that you can see cloakers fairly easily, I feel obliged to respond here.

There is ONE factor that differentiates the situations shown in this video from the experiences I have dealing with cloakers, and it's a MASSIVE difference. One thing, and that's all. Want to know what makes this even better? It's not a problem with graphical settings that I'm going to be blaming this on.

RANGE.

I usually work with short range weapons, and even when I'm using an AR or other Rifle weapon, I tend to fight at mid-range or closer. I have a Rail Rifle, but while I avoid CQC, I primarily fight well inside AR range even with that. I occasionally (rarely) use a Sniper Rifle, and with that weapon, the closer zoom allows me to fight at longer ranges while still FEELING close thanks to the zoomed in view.

When fighting like Judge does, at longer ranges with a Laser Rifle, the zoom on his weapon doesn't make the targets appear as close as what I'm used to seeing them, and distance makes the cloak effect harder to see. AS IT SHOULD.

In spite of that added distance, in his first series of 4 still images, there was only 1 where I missed the cloaked Scout, and that was number 3, where a portion of the Scout's body was hidden by the frame of the sight and the rest was partially obscured by smoke (in which I've had trouble seeing NON-cloaked players before). I was actually put off by the phrasing of the question, and thought Judge had missed the Scouts in a couple of the pics himself. Fortunately, it was a trick question, and a poorly worded one that relied on a lie to keep its cover and try to make a point.

In the name of full disclosure, I was watching the video at 360p, so a far lower resolution than what I play the game in, and on my laptop's 16" screen instead of the 32" TV that my PS3 is hooked up to. It's possible the smaller image and lower resolution might have made a difference to visibility, but with the way images distort on YouTube, I can't say definitively whether this would make it easier or harder to make out the cloaked targets.

And yes, at long enough range that many weapons won't even hit a target anyway, cloaks can make players pretty difficult to see at times - but even then, they're visible if you're well positioned and alert for the possibility of a cloaked Scout. The majority of people's complaints about the cloak revolve specifically around cloaked Scouts with Shotguns, and to be perfectly fair, you CAN see THOSE enemies clearly WELL before they're in range.

Finally, Judge, at the end of your video, you show screenshot 4, with the cloaked player FAINTLY VISIBLE on the right of your beam, then put an arrow pointing out how the NONEXISTENT OTHER SCOUT TO THE LEFT is completely invisible to try and prove your point about how hard it is to see a cloaked Scout. Maybe you do have some vision trouble, because contrary to your claims, that Scout WAS VISIBLE, though it's a lot less visibility than they have at my usual engagement range. And even less than players with cloaks have at the range where the majority of complaints are based.

I find it interesting in Halo, where camoflauge makes very invisble, I mean your suit's outline is very evident, but the camoflauge is perfect. Why didn't anybody complain about that kind of invisibility? (You would also only get 30 sec of invisibility)