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

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

Excellent video, and it showcases beautifully what I mean.

In the shadow, scouts are easy to see.
In the light, good ******* luck.



It's why when I need to combat scouts, I go to a badly lit place so I could see them more easily.
Some maps are just badly lit in general, which makes it perfect for my 100m laser snipes

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.

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.

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.

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.

That death at 1:10...ha ha, amazingly bad luck.

I disagree. Not with your arguement about distractions or color blending. But that this is poor evidence of cloaking faults. The video is not in poor visual quality, you can see frame by frame screens, and the targets are only between 50-75 meters in range which is consider mid range combat zones (check the battle information when he is aiming).

I thought blending in with the environment was suppose to be done by standing still not sprinting though..

Good scouts never needed cloak before, so making sure that running while cloaked is noticeable is definitely important. Cloak is for sneaking, not sprinting.

Up to a certain extent yes, but when you're that far away, it should be harder to see them, if not mostly invisible.

if you want to sneak up on somebody then you have to run/sprint/move.....what you just said didn't make sense lol.

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.

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?"

Good scouts never needed cloak before, so making sure that running while cloaked is noticeable is definitely important. Cloak is for sneaking, not sprinting.

Is a cloaked Scout less noticeable when crouched and moving slowly?

Is a cloaked Scout less noticeable when crouched and moving slowly?

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.

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.

Yes I did. But deleted them I made "Sea Sea Pee" instead.

basically invisible

He was completely, not basically, so I cannot see your point.

how about a video that actually has good commentary without an air of a know it all? But your God has spoken, so you should listen.

Good scouts never needed cloak before, so making sure that running while cloaked is noticeable is definitely important. Cloak is for sneaking, not sprinting.

If you base the cloak on your speed, not in 3 levels, with a range from 100% when standing still to 75/ 80% when sprinting, you would have a different cloak level at different speed.

"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.

He was completely, not basically, so I cannot see your point.

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.

.

Judge please do another video showing the same evidence at 20m and then we can discuss this more sensibly.

I like the idea of scouts being completely invisible in well lit environments, but easy to see in shadows. It's like a reverse-stealth concept from other games.

I wouldn't even mind if it stayed this way because it would force people to defend from certain points on the map where shadows fall onto approach vectors. It could make for some interesting strategies really. If that's going to be the case I would look to see the shimmer take on a VERY pronounced effect in shadows though. And the dampening bonus needs to be gone regardless. Cloak + dampeners for the full stealth experience is fair. Cloak + tons of armor, no. Too good.

Up to a certain extent yes, but when you're that far away, it should be harder to see them, if not mostly invisible.

Cloaked scouts should be basically invisible at +60m like in this video - otherwise the cloak serves really no purpose at all.

Judge please do another video showing the same evidence at 20m and then we can discuss this more sensibly.

Cloaked scouts should be basically invisible at +60m like in this video - otherwise the cloak serves really no purpose at all.

Judge please do another video showing the same evidence at 20m and then we can discuss this more sensibly.

"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.

... As an american I never seen it spelled "Lazer' not even in the down south area around here; I always thought it was a british thing where as lazor an interneme of firing it.