These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2011-10-19 17:22:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lucien Visteen wrote:
To answer your question Tippia. Scanning for possible gank sites while being safe inside enemy systems.
My only question was “[the problem arises when players uses ships not intended for cov-ops roles] such as…?” so I presume this is what you mean?

So… how is does that fall outside of the intended use of cloaks or non-covops ships?


If they used said cloak to hide only, then no, it wouldn't be a problem. But they scan too, quite actively, atleast for a moment. Then they wait for complacency.

If non cov-ops could be prevented from scanning aswell, then no, it wouldn't be a problem.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#62 - 2011-10-19 17:29:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Lucien Visteen wrote:
To answer your question Tippia. Scanning for possible gank sites while being safe inside enemy systems.
My only question was “[the problem arises when players uses ships not intended for cov-ops roles] such as…?” so I presume this is what you mean?

So… how is does that fall outside of the intended use of cloaks or non-covops ships?


If they used said cloak to hide only, then no, it wouldn't be a problem. But they scan too, quite actively, atleast for a moment. Then they wait for complacency.

If non cov-ops could be prevented from scanning aswell, then no, it wouldn't be a problem.


Of course it would be a problem. A big problem. This pilot is industrial/scanner. Flies a magnate for scanning. Pops into a hole, hits dscan while still cloaked from the hole, and if that's clear will drop probes, cloak and scan.

Why you still trying to nerf my hole, bro?

Here: I fix for you.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2011-10-19 17:49:03 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Of course it would be a problem. A big problem. This pilot is industrial/scanner. Flies a magnate for scanning. Pops into a hole, hits dscan while still cloaked from the hole, and if that's clear will drop probes, cloak and scan.

Why you still trying to nerf my hole, bro?

Here: I fix for you.


The bolded here is what I have a problem with, cept it is warp to safe spot, cloak and scan.

In known space that gives no risk with rewards.

And let me take a look.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#64 - 2011-10-19 17:50:02 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
If they used said cloak to hide only, then no, it wouldn't be a problem. But they scan too, quite actively, atleast for a moment. Then they wait for complacency.

If non cov-ops could be prevented from scanning aswell, then no, it wouldn't be a problem.
That doesn't really answer the question: how is does any of that fall outside of the intended use of cloaks or non-covops ships?

What is the problem?
Endeavour Starfleet
#65 - 2011-10-19 19:07:07 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Lucien Visteen wrote:

I havent proposed anything yet thou.

And Ingvar, there is a rather easy way to exclude WH if you are so worried about it.

Example:
Module Something is doing something to something.

Warning! This module will not work outside known space.



That's flat out clunky and hard to explain from a lore or immersion standpoint.

There's a better way.


I don't wan't AFK cloakers in WH not to be affected. At best give them 3-4 minutes on grid before a cloak probe scan can even register that a random point exists. Otherwise if you AFK in a "hole" as apparently y'all like to call it. You ought to be able to be found and destroyed. WH hisec, lull and null
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#66 - 2011-10-19 19:13:07 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I don't wan't AFK cloakers in WH not to be affected. At best give them 3-4 minutes on grid before a cloak probe scan can even register that a random point exists. Otherwise if you AFK in a "hole" as apparently y'all like to call it. You ought to be able to be found and destroyed. WH hisec, lull and null


OK, now you're babbling incoherently.

There are no afk cloakers in wormholes.

There may or may not be ships in the hole cloaked... that's a simple fact of life you learn to accept and deal with. Hell, I've had the crap startled out of me by a stealth bomber uncloaking while I was running my PI. Fortunately, I keep my haulers prepared for that contingency, survived the first torpedo hit and warped off while the second set was in flight. It's simply the way it is.

The problem with your idea is you break cloaking, which is working (at least in wormholes) quite fine as is. The problem you're failing to address is that cloaking isn't working well enough in empire space... people can still see you in local when cloaked.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Endeavour Starfleet
#67 - 2011-10-19 19:24:48 UTC
So your solution instead of addressing the solution is removing them from local so they have even more guaranteed free kills.

No that is not a solution and yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking. The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills"

If you can sit there in a system cloaked with access to Dscan then go take a shower take a nap or do what you want. I want it made risky. Not exempted.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2011-10-19 19:34:20 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking.
Why?
Quote:
The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills"
Fun fact: AFK cloakers have never killed anyone. AFK cloaking does not give you free kills. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#69 - 2011-10-19 19:47:56 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
So your solution instead of addressing the solution is removing them from local so they have even more guaranteed free kills.

No that is not a solution and yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking. The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills"

If you can sit there in a system cloaked with access to Dscan then go take a shower take a nap or do what you want. I want it made risky. Not exempted.


Not simply removing them from local. There's a new thread detailing the concept better, I welcome you to check it out and offer input. Just remember to bring your towel, and don't panic.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2011-10-19 20:02:50 UTC
This thread is still going? Ugh

Tippia and Ingvar, you guys have way more patience than I do.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#71 - 2011-10-19 21:00:39 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
So your solution instead of addressing the solution is removing them from local so they have even more guaranteed free kills.

No that is not a solution and yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking. The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills"

If you can sit there in a system cloaked with access to Dscan then go take a shower take a nap or do what you want. I want it made risky. Not exempted.


why should afking cloaked significant risks? you afk in station waiting reds to disappear from local so you can go on ratting riskfree, so afkers wait some dumbass to appear for a "free kill". Whats wrong with this, still dont get it. part of the game
Endeavour Starfleet
#72 - 2011-10-20 08:39:08 UTC
Feligast wrote:
This thread is still going? Ugh

Tippia and Ingvar, you guys have way more patience than I do.



Yes it is still going because some people want to debate instead of violating the forum TOS.

Hell atleast some are trying to offer their views on the subject. Even if it is going to do nothing more than boost AFK cloaking rather than stop the incentive as mine can.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2011-10-20 09:11:33 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Hell atleast some are trying to offer their views on the subject. Even if it is going to do nothing more than boost AFK cloaking rather than stop the incentive as mine can.
…except, of course, that yours does not stop the incentive to AFK cloak (nor does it offer any reason as to why it needs to), whereas the other suggestions do.
Endeavour Starfleet
#74 - 2011-10-20 10:16:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Hell atleast some are trying to offer their views on the subject. Even if it is going to do nothing more than boost AFK cloaking rather than stop the incentive as mine can.
…except, of course, that yours does not stop the incentive to AFK cloak (nor does it offer any reason as to why it needs to), whereas the other suggestions do.



I think after you AFK a few times in a hostile system. Get uncloaked by my probes, Get probed down with normal combat probes, then attacked you would have far less incentive to AFK cloak in a hostile system.

Others are too harsh such as fuel bays and random decloaks. Still others are a stealth boost to AFK cloaking such as vanishing in local after cloak (And of course in that topic cov ops still get to hotdrop for free Wudathoughtit) heck in that topic the OP doesn't even want to share his kills except with his steath guys in my opinon (poor titans) Big smile Ya those ideas arent fair or feasible in my opinion. Target only the incentive to AFK cloak and nothing else. Active cloaks ought to be able to hotdrop instantly. AFKers ought to be able to be located and removed. It is that simple and my idea does that.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2011-10-20 10:33:16 UTC
I have no problem with cov-ops getting a boost to their cloak if that will mean less usage of cloak on other ships for the same purpose. I want cov-op'ing to be sneaky and fun, not camp and gank.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2011-10-20 10:37:02 UTC
Endeavour StarfleetI think after you AFK a few times in a hostile system. Get uncloaked by my probes, Get probed down with normal combat probes, then attacked you would have far less incentive to AFK cloak in a hostile system.[/quote wrote:
Not really, no, because you're not addressing the thing that actually provides an incentive to AFK cloak.

If that's what you want to do, then guess what? The best solution is to go after that incentivising mechanic. Of course, you have yet to give much of a reason why it should be disincentivised…
Quote:
Others are too harsh such as fuel bays and random decloaks.
…and funnily enough, they don't “fix” AFK cloaking either, and most certainly do not disincentivise the activity.
Quote:
Still others are a stealth boost to AFK cloaking such as vanishing in local after cloak
Maybe you should read the actual proposal…
[quote]Target only the incentive to AFK cloak and nothing else.
Yeah… you're not doing that.
Endeavour Starfleet
#77 - 2011-10-20 10:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
I recognize a stealth boost to cloaking (And the usual "remove local" antics) when I see one but hey just in case I will give it one more read.

Edit: On the second read I disapprove of it even more. It will cause a HUUUUGE growth of AFK cloaking in covops ships which is already used to hotdrop for free kills.

I am not going to support stealth (Remove local to benefit me and my stealth AFK buddies but not my normal roam buddies) removal from local any more (Hell quite the opposite actually) than I support any removal from local. The idea is to stop the free ganks not increase them. What on earth do you think this topic is for? Do you think I want them removed because I don't like things that arent green purple or blue? I want them removed because they have almost every advantage on their side if they are willing to leave the PC on and thats it.

I support my idea to remove the incentive to AFK cloak. If you can be destroyed by deciding to cloak in a hostile system while AFK for more than 10-20 minutes there is alot less incentive to do that and stay active in front of your computer. That is pure fact. Because a loss in EVE is not something you can take back with a single click.

Just in case CCP would rather do something different than probes tho I will detail my variation of the cloak fuel bay and random decloak system in another topic. I will need some time to make the images however.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#78 - 2011-10-20 10:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but a warp scramble shuts off Micro Warp Drives. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good yarn.


Thats the tenth time, the one time where the agressor maybe decided to stay for just a little to long. Or forgot to align to a safe spot. Or was just a little less focused than usual.
Well one thing we can gather from your invented statistics, is that you believe that cloaking isn't safe and they can be caught. Good to know.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
So your solution instead of addressing the solution is removing them from local so they have even more guaranteed free kills.

No that is not a solution and yes I am trying to break AFK cloaking. The same argument you make can be made for the "need" of AFK cloaking in any space. "We NEED to counter local" "We NEED to get these (free) kills"

If you can sit there in a system cloaked with access to Dscan then go take a shower take a nap or do what you want. I want it made risky. Not exempted.
Way to side step the real issue there. No one with any sense of balance, wishes for local to simply be removed without a package of changes to take it's place. Even Ingvar Angst's idea doesn't simply remove cloakers from local, it goes further and is actually a very balanced idea.

But with your idea you not only affecting AFK cloaking, but also active cloaking.
It boils down to this: you're breaking cloaks, but still want full, 100%, risk free, instant intel from local? Are you saying that is a balanced approach?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2011-10-20 11:00:03 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Lucien Visteen wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but a warp scramble shuts off Micro Warp Drives. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good yarn.


Thats the tenth time, the one time where the agressor maybe decided to stay for just a little to long. Or forgot to align to a safe spot. Or was just a little less focused than usual.
Well one thing we can gather from your invented statistics, is that you believe that cloaking isn't safe and they can be caught. Good to know.


I never said they could not be caught, and did I invent a statistic?

Oh well, what I did say was that a cloaker, once he/she reaches a safe spot, can't be found. They most certainly can be caught yes. But that is something entirely different.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2011-10-20 11:10:23 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I recognize a stealth boost to cloaking (And the usual "remove local" antics) when I see one
Then, again, maybe you should read the actual proposal…
It completely removes the the entire concept of AFK cloaking, if you haven't noticed.
Quote:
I support my idea to remove the incentive to AFK cloak.
Then why is it that you suggest something that does not address the incentive to AFK cloak, and instead goes after normal cloaking?

If you are so adamant in the need to disincentivise AFK cloaking (which, I might add, you still have utterly failed to give any kind of reason for) then why are you equally adamant against a proposal that does exactly that? It not only disincentivises it — it removes the practice entirely. Isn't that what you want? You're making less and less sense here. Instead, you're increasingly appearing as someone who simply wants cloaks removed and to pile on risks on others without accepting any of your own.