Update on 3.2 after doing nothing:

Update on 3.4, again after doing nothing:

Update on 4.2, again, after not expending TU's:

Update on 4.3, etc...:

Update on 4.5, again - no TU's expended:

The ship was boarded today and I asked why it was able to be boarded when it was cloaked. Mica responded:

...which is fair enough and prevents abuse.

The issue arises on the reporting of the status of the cloaking device, as it is obviously flawed. The report on 3.2 is correct, but the update on 3.4 should have indicated that the ship was no longer cloaked. It should have, at the very least, updated the Navigation report during it's maintenance check/payday on 4.2 to indicate the voiding of the cloak.

Cheers,

Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director

Lord Scrimm:

This is only partially true. I specifically told you that I saw "fleeting glimpse" in my orbital quad a day or 2 before I boarded it. If your ship was still cloaked, How would I know that???? You lost a ship to me because you were cocky...

By the way, using the update to get a "free tu" scan is cheesy and manipulates the game system anyway....

Lord Goth
(he he he)

No - I lost a ship because I depended upon incorrect information from the turn results. Cloaked positions cannot be interacted with in any form and the results SPECIFICALLY stated the ship was cloaked. Turn results, not private player interactions, are the only concrete indicators of circumstances within the game. Profiting from a Bug is hardly something to crow about...

A scan report is generated by every ship in the game when it scans another ship. Whether that information is stored up for weeks at a time or is downloaded daily is immaterial. I was performing near daily updates to ENSURE that this ship was indeed cloaked and I acted accordingly.

So unless you have anything positive to contribute to the resolution of this Bug...

Cheers,

Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director

Sad......

Blaming what you would LIKE to be a bug, instead of your own arrogance. Blaming your exploitation of a percieved bug (indefinite cloaking with reports generated by a cheezy turn update scam) not working the way you wanted it to for you loss of a ship...

Even ignoring my warning to you is the fault of this imaginary "bug"..... Sad.

A bug is something that doesn't work right according to the game designers, I will wait to see if the designers will change the cloaking to work the way you say it should...

Sad.

Goth
(accept your lumps)

Yes, it did - EoTC (End of Turn Cloaks)

Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director

Even so, these didn't even last forever...Did they?

I wonder if you were able to get turn updates for these kind of cloaks and gleen scan reports without deactivating the cloaks....somehow I doubt it.
--------------------------------

I wonder when if ever your "cloaked ship" would stop transmitting scan data? Based on what you are saying, this ship should have been invulnerable and transmitting data FOREVER??????

It seems funny that every time I blow up or take over one of your ships, you blame the game system as having a bug (remember when my raiding ship blew up your freighters and did not activate the "covering" AFT starbase?).

Blaming imaginary bugs for your blunders is unbecoming and embarrassing. Bad tactics are to blame.

Lord Goth
(Testing out my new cloaked torpedo ship 1725 Fleeting Glimpse)

I believe that while a cloaked ship cannot be scanned, it cannot scan others either. Effectively blind, a cloaked ship would therefore be useless for monitoring purposes.

Goth:

I do not want this forum to become a personal slanging match or a forum for one-upsmanship. If it is to degenerate into such, then there is no point to this Forum at all.

1) There is an error in the reporting of the TU's remaining for active cloaking devices - it does not accurately reflect when the cloak runs out, even after ship updates are run.

2) The ship was captured - I accept that and never disputed that fact.

3) You captured it - is that enough recognition for you?

4) Irregardless of what others may assume of my intent, who captured what and from whom, #1 still exists and needs to be corrected so that others do not run afoul of this bug.

5) Nowhere have I asked that rules for cloaking be altered or changed. I have reported a Bug in the Cloaking TU's remaining reporting in the Navigation Section of the Ship Report. I have requested that it accurately reflect the TU's remaining on a Cloak.

6) Nowhere have I asked for the return of the ship or recompense for it's loss. I asked Mica to look into the situation when it first arose, he explained it and my response was 'fair enough - another expensive lesson learned.'

7) Mica was made aware of the issue and started to look into it immediately. I should have left it at that, but instead, I posted to this forum so that others could be made aware of the problem and avoid similar issues.

It is my belief that bug reporting should be transparent to the users so that they can avoid the problem until its resolution and, if possible, suggest workarounds until a solution is presented. This also alerts users to the problem and that it is being addressed by the developer, so that when a round of updates appears, there is no surprise as to what has been implemented.

And Goth, for your information: Bug reporting in Phoenix almost always involves loss. In software development, a matter needs to be seen as Non-trivial to the user in order for it to be allocated resources to be resolved. Something that is pointed out hypothetically carries far less impact than something which involves measurable user impact. The loss of a ship because of dependence upon faulty reporting is a measurable user impact.

So, if the above is "Sad" or "Arrogant" then so be it. If, however, it chafes your ego that I left the Fleeting Glimpse in the OQ of Ressurection to investigate a potential bug (after moving the other cloaked ships that were there to safer locales), then so be it as well... I've lost many other positions to bug reporting over the years and will likely continue to do so.

Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director

Ok, This will be the last thing I say on this subject: Any time you want to test a bug, send the ships to me, I like like your ships

Goth

Please could you clarify why you consider this to be 'cheesy' and manipulating the game.

I can see nothing wrong with it, and I suspect many other players make use of it as well.

I guess because it's a scan but takes zero tus to do, although you'll only see ships than enter the square so it's not a full scan.

But still, maybe there should be a minimum tu usage when you request update

It's the same zero tu scan that ships are constantly doing anyway, spotting ships that pass by. Nothing additional is being gained, other than a more timely update. If not being gained via an orderless update, then orders could be issued that cost less than 60TUs which would do pretty much the same thing.

No, the bug report was reported out of character and signed off with the posters' real name.

Should a cloaked position even get that level of scan though? Seems to go against the cloaks basic principals - no one can scan you, you can scan no one?

Mark

Hi,

My post referred to ships in general getting updates containing scans; whether they are cloaked or not.

Whether a ship can or cannot scan while cloaked would depend on the ingame explaination of the technology, and I personally don't mind either way

There are a number of instances where the "rules as printed" contradict the "rules in practice".

What is "always known" may in fact be wrong, as Mica's response on this issue clearly states:

The rules of the game are still very fluid and unless you continue to push the envelope, you will never know what can and cannot be done. Just because a bug does not affect one particular person or their playing style does not make it any less a bug to others.

Cheers,

Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director