These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Meditril
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#21 - 2011-10-18 16:11:48 UTC
Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2011-10-18 17:14:15 UTC
I do hope CCP have something planned for cloaking. It is a cool mechanic but it is being abused to the extent that its not even funny.

You can put a cloak on anything and be virtually untouchable. And yet players cry and shout: If you cant afford to loose what you fly then dont fly it, or HTFU and get out of 0.0! To that I say, what is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy.

You also say that noone should be safe in EVE and that the very prospect of undocking should put you in danger. Then why is it that you should be able to find a safe haven anywhere you are, for as long as you like without ramifications.

How did EVE get to sutch a state that cloak is the only thing you depend on? Is it the fear of loosing your ship? Is it the fear of loosing your edge? Or is it the fear of having to adapt?


The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#23 - 2011-10-18 17:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: XXSketchxx
Quote:
This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post.

What issue?
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#24 - 2011-10-18 17:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Zymurgist
For the 8975896459865823658991051734056035868th time, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH CLOAKING!

Ranting removed. Zymurgist

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#25 - 2011-10-18 17:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Svenjabi Xiang
Forum needs help. Can't be asked to retype nicely.

Cloakers aren't always afk and don't need to be made to move simply at your whim. Doing so forces cloakers to give up a position which was intended for them to be able to gain.
Endeavour Starfleet
#26 - 2011-10-18 20:16:37 UTC
Sir Substance wrote:
Let me get this streight. You suggest that cloaked ships be scannable, and that ships under cloak throw off the scanner by warping to a different spot in the solar system.

Since thats exactly the same as not having a cloak, why bother using them?


You don't warp to the spot it finds as it is random. You use normal probes to find him if he has not recloaked because he is AFK.
Endeavour Starfleet
#27 - 2011-10-18 20:19:54 UTC
Meditril wrote:
Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more.


Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time.

This plan will address the issue. Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison to free dotdrops and free effect under the current system.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2011-10-18 20:21:47 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
I do hope CCP have something planned for cloaking. It is a cool mechanic but it is being abused to the extent that its not even funny.

You can put a cloak on anything and be virtually untouchable. And yet players cry and shout: If you cant afford to loose what you fly then dont fly it, or HTFU and get out of 0.0! To that I say, what is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy.

You also say that noone should be safe in EVE and that the very prospect of undocking should put you in danger. Then why is it that you should be able to find a safe haven anywhere you are, for as long as you like without ramifications.

How did EVE get to sutch a state that cloak is the only thing you depend on? Is it the fear of loosing your ship? Is it the fear of loosing your edge? Or is it the fear of having to adapt?





hehe, see what you did there? i did, you completely ignored the fact that cloaking requires a module, a HIGH SLOT module.

so even a cloaker IS NOT SAFE, if he TRIES anything or gets found, if he doesnt fix his **** quick, he is fighting with 1 less high-slot, and in alot of fights, that can make a difference
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2011-10-18 20:25:10 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Meditril wrote:
Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more.


Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time.

This plan will address the issue. Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison to free dotdrops and free effect under the current system.



what if he is playing FC or something? what fi for whetever reason, logging off will severely interrupt the action he is currently involved in? honestly, i go afk ALL THE EFFING TIME while cloaked, and so far, the only people who have EVER complained are low and null carebears in mining ships who say its "unfair that can hide from them", fact is, if you feel your under threat from someone in your freakin system you need to do one of 2 things:

1) tavel with a buddy/security (every null sec alliance should have security flying around anyways)
2) GTFO because EvE is obviously too scary for you.
Endeavour Starfleet
#30 - 2011-10-18 20:31:18 UTC
If the player is FCing in a cloak I HIGHLY doubt the enemy is stupid enough to probe under Tidi when the cloaker receives warning after warning.

If the player is AFK in one client while FC in another and not paying attention? Well that activity is exactly what I want to add risk to not allow.

Not active in client while in a hostile system? Log off or accept the risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2011-10-18 20:43:47 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time.
Says who?
Quote:
This plan will address the issue.
What issue?
Quote:
Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison.
You mean breaking cloaking completely is a “minor issue” compared to the complete non-issue you're trying to solve? How so?
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2011-10-18 20:50:50 UTC
what do you all say we go park a bunch of claoked Sb's out by whatever station she mines around and just taunt her while being all ghostie, thenj go afk for hours so she can't mine, since her main is obviously either a nullbear or someone who is just REALLY bad at fighting paper-thin stealth bombers....

honestly though, AFK cloakers are BALANCED, they CAN be found WITH EFFORT, and they cannot FIGHT BACK, most cloak ships have almost NO GOOD TANK and 1 less high slot, so even if they did engage you, if your competent at all they should be able to kill you

honestly i wonder if anyone whos ever been "attacked" by an AFK cloaker ever actually UNDOCKED and WENT ABOUT THEIOR BUSINESS.

cause you know what? if they are AFK then you can go about your business without being interered with, if they arent AFK and attack you THEY ARENT AFK CLOAKERS.
learn to bait your targets and eliminate them, instead of coming on hear and whining about how its too ahrd to find them and you want an easy button....
Endeavour Starfleet
#33 - 2011-10-18 21:23:01 UTC
Thank you for revealing another reason to add risk to AFK cloaking.

Don't like what someone dares to mention or debates on the forum? Put an AFK cloaky in their system and get free effect against them. No need to organize a roam. No need to bring your fleet and take down the POS. Just go abuse the cloaking system and help make it that much harder for that person to debate in the future.

That is EXACTLY the reason why many people use alts these days to post.
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2011-10-18 23:53:16 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
hehe, see what you did there? i did, you completely ignored the fact that cloaking requires a module, a HIGH SLOT module.

so even a cloaker IS NOT SAFE, if he TRIES anything or gets found, if he doesnt fix his **** quick, he is fighting with 1 less high-slot, and in alot of fights, that can make a difference



Nine out of ten times though the cloaker activates the micro warp drive fitted in his med slot to get out of scramble range. Then warp off to somewhere and activates the cloak. Safe and sound again.

A cloak should not be a personal station away from home.

The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#35 - 2011-10-19 00:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Don't like what someone dares to mention or debates on the forum?
How can one have a debate with you, when you don't even want to address the reason for AFKing.

You just keep your head buried in the sand and we'll talk around you.

Lucien Visteen wrote:
Nine out of ten times though the cloaker activates the micro warp drive fitted in his med slot to get out of scramble range. Then warp off to somewhere and activates the cloak. Safe and sound again.
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.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#36 - 2011-10-19 03:00:25 UTC
Hey, OP. You seem to have overlooked something.

Ingvar Angst wrote:
Well this is a poorly thought out piece of crap of an idea.

You're completely nerfing wormhole intel gathering and changing the entire meta of wormholes by effectively mandating that people in wormholes constantly maintain a skynet of cloak detecting probes.

You failed to consider ripple effects. You attempted to fix a problem that's not really a problem, and in effect break a necessary tool in an entirely different section of the game. It's critical to be undetected and undetectable in wormholes for a variety of reasons. You really want to "fix" the non-issue with cloaked afk people?

Fix the fact that you can see cloaked ships in local in the first place, and do so in a balanced way.


You're breaking other areas of the game with something this stupid.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Endeavour Starfleet
#37 - 2011-10-19 03:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
The whole idea is removing the incentive to AFK. That includes wormholes which are plagued by the practice just as much.

Edit: Also remember that it is a random point. There is no way you can maintain an umbrella over just the area of OPs and expect to uncloak the person. Also the huge scan times would prevent that.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2011-10-19 05:09:53 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The whole idea is removing the incentive to AFK. That includes wormholes which are plagued by the practice just as much.

Edit: Also remember that it is a random point. There is no way you can maintain an umbrella over just the area of OPs and expect to uncloak the person. Also the huge scan times would prevent that.


Remove the incentive to AFK while docked or in a pos while you're at it.

It's only fair.
Endeavour Starfleet
#39 - 2011-10-19 06:43:47 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The whole idea is removing the incentive to AFK. That includes wormholes which are plagued by the practice just as much.

Edit: Also remember that it is a random point. There is no way you can maintain an umbrella over just the area of OPs and expect to uncloak the person. Also the huge scan times would prevent that.


Remove the incentive to AFK while docked or in a pos while you're at it.

It's only fair.



Come put the POS into reinforced. Bubble up the station and destroy the players who eventually undock. Capture the station system and force the player to try to undock to escape or clone jump to do anything.

Many ways to counter those types. None to remove an AFK cloak contact that can hotdrop or attack at any time he chooses after a relaxing bath, a night out, or good sleep.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#40 - 2011-10-19 07:07:35 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The whole idea is removing the incentive to AFK. That includes wormholes which are plagued by the practice just as much.

Edit: Also remember that it is a random point. There is no way you can maintain an umbrella over just the area of OPs and expect to uncloak the person. Also the huge scan times would prevent that.


Remove the incentive to AFK while docked or in a pos while you're at it.

It's only fair.



Come put the POS into reinforced. Bubble up the station and destroy the players who eventually undock. Capture the station system and force the player to try to undock to escape or clone jump to do anything.

Many ways to counter those types. None to remove an AFK cloak contact that can hotdrop or attack at any time he chooses after a relaxing bath, a night out, or good sleep.
Those suggestions still don't remove or address the reason and incentive to AFK.

There is a thing called cause and effect. AFKing is the effect, you need to address the cause and so far, you're avoiding do that.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.