I ******* did circles around a proto heavy to see how long until he sees me, and I just gave up and shotgunned him.

Vulpes mate. I thought I was quite clear. I was not saying the cloak needs changing, or it is broken. I said this a few times in the video. I am responding to people who have been saying that cloaks are easy to see, and if you cannot then you need to get good.

That guy I tracked was not visible. Maybe a bug, maybe design. It matters not. I could not see him at all at full sprint at only 60 meters away. This supports people who say they are hard to see.

Now the question for you all is "Is this fair and balanced.. or not?"

Also liked the puns ;) Yu have some British in you there.

I was trying to all clever and cool. I though I would sit there pointing at his head for a bit as it would be good footage....A rail in the face was mildly unexpected to say the least.

Judge needs to turn his gamma down and his contrast up.

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.

*Points out the fallacy that Judge talked about at the start of the video*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBICx2yyZo

This video goes into detail about cloaking. I have no comment yet, but judge it for yourself.

In any case, I think the cloak is fine (aside from bugs). In the open field, it's designed to be reasonably unnoticeable by blending in with the background and removing the LoS chevron. However, a scout can do nothing from that range but move and sneak, which is exactly what it's role is.

Fun fact: cloak removes the LoS chevron marker (although keeping "sights turn red".. that makes no sense)..
BUT... if you get spotted by someone who can passive scan you (HI Mr. Caldari Scout!) you get a dancing red marker floating above your head again.

I so like seeing little dancing red arrows. They're like unexpected Christmas presents to me.


"SantaChevron says you've been a naughty little scout this year *kablam*"

This is a phenomenon where one is so focused on a task that the brain does not consciously register other elements in the environment.

completely invisible as shown in the video

lazer

Z is used as a reference to sci-fi. Often spelled with an O too. Its a nerd in-joke.

"Lazor" and "laz0r" are in-jokes for the sci-fi community.

"Lazer" is a (typically American) misunderstanding of how acronyms work, or a mistaken attempt at the in-joke which makes you look like an idiot instead of someone who actually understands the reference they're trying to make.

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.

Good case to temporarily remove cloaks like they did with some weapons until they are more functionally correct, but I do feel cloaks are worthwhile having in the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBICx2yyZo

This video goes into detail about cloaking. I have no comment yet, but judge it for yourself.

The shimmer makes it significantly harder to spot you, and it removes the red chevron over your head.
You don't need to be completely invisible, you just need some "camo".

This will actually keep the skill in scouting, you can't just charge straight into people and expect to not be detected.
You know how scouts were invisible?
They were aware of their surroundings, looked for opportunities and then moved, and I hate how the cloak makes it unnecessary.

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)

This is a phenomenon where one is so focused on a task that the brain does not consciously register other elements in the environment.

But still. The second example shows there is some bug, or game design decision that makes runners fully invisible.

How petty are you?

Was the runner made invisible by some bug or game design decision, or was he made invisible by just the right mix of environmental conditions (i.e. perfect storm)?

Virgil, Aeneid 6. 541 ff (trans. Day-Lewis) (Roman epic C1st B.C.) :
"The Avernian Grove . . . here Rhadamanthus rules, and most severe his rule is, trying and chastising wrongdoers, forcing confessions from any who, on earth, went gleefully undetected--but uselessly, since they have only postponed till death their atonement, sat once Tisiphone, the avenger, scourge in had, pounces upon the guilty."

Someone finally realizes the link between my actions and my name. Well played.