Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Newbie frigates are not a problem. You know it too, so quite hilarious coming from the guy who calls others liar.

My point is you keep going on about how things should be vulnerable, but your most useful tool you do not want vulnerable...for other people, sure they can be vulnerable.

You quite clearly want to have your cake and eat it too. You are perhaps the most intellectually dishonest person in this thread, Mike.

Right, and calling people liar is not an attack? Spare me your faux indignation Mike.

Cloaks are a universal mechanic too. They works the same everywhere. That universal game mechanic thing is a load of nonsense. The point of ownership is a red herring.

I am quite aware of the difference between modules and something like local (you know that too, which just underscores yet again your inability to be intellectually honest). You keep dodging the point about how you want a benefit form something that is invulnerable to attack.

I didn't say they did. I said you wanted them to and they chose not to.

I don't know as I don't log time, but whenever I'm on and there's one I'm I'm generally in it.

Except in those situations you achieve nothing and can be actively monitored by other players. People know you are there and not moving. Cloakers are not. Besides which, I'm suggesting that people in stations get logged out too.

No, I'd simply not do it because I have no interest in fighting you. I'm not a heavy PvPer. I do a bit with spectre and some with my alliance but that's it. The rest of the time I do industry and trading. And that's fine, because this is a sandbox game. Stop expecting everyone to do what you do and treating them like second rate players if they don't. Go live in your wormhole if that's what you like.

1. Yes, it's the same. You get a name of everyone in system, as soon as you load just as they do. They have prepared to use it in a way you don't like, but that's your problem. How it gets used is circumstantial, but the benefit is the same.

2. Cloaked ships do not die, unless the pilot makes a mistake. Ships with a cloak die all the time when the cloak isn't in use, but the reverse is simple pilot error. The duration is infinite. There is no way to force an encounter on a cloaked ship unless the pilot has made an error. That qualifies as infinite safety, while undocked, and is therefore not consistent with EVE save by Dev Decree. You can twist what I say and call your interpretation a lie if you like, but that does not make it so. On the other hand, your outright fabrications are lies.

3. All of those things are things in space, one is a part of the basic client of the game. There is no equivalence.

4. This point was true, things can indeed be balanced without Dev Decree. The current state of cloaks is not among those things.

I am not advocating a mismatched case of safety for me and not for someone else. I am advocating a return to the ideal of anything undocked is at risk. You want to defend a mechanic so broken you can go afk all day and never be at any risk at all, while still having a serious effect on the locals of the system.

You want a double standard, and you are willing to turn yourself inside out and upside down to make it seem like that isn't so.

The dev decree specified that it was ok because it disrupted PvE.

That is the sole rationale offered. It's acknowledged that it's an issue, but it's important that isk making be disrupted. Apparently more important than any other consideration.

You can shift it to logging in means you are subject to non-consent, but even that does not make cloaks balanced. POS and stations are vulnerable in their own way, and even station traders have their own competition. Cloaks suffer nothing without pilot error or choice. There is no element of non-consent that can be thrust upon the user of an active cloak.

Even if that were not so, you have not cleared cloaks, just added POS and stations to the list of unbalanced game systems. However, as they are vulnerable on their own play levels, cloaks remain the only unbalanced factor.

That is a lie. A deliberate misrepresentation of what CCP Fozzie said in that interview. It was not the sole rationale offered.

PvE pilots suffer nothing without pilot error or choice.

I'm not advocating more safety.

PvE pilots die regardless of pilot error. They get caught and killed all the time. They certainly are not so safe they can hang out in space all day while AFK.

Cloaked Camper-
Completely safe for as long he wants, even when AFK.
Becoming vunerable to attack is 100% by choice.
Zero need to be awake, aware, or in any way active while still effective.

PvE ratter or miner-
Completely safe so long as no one is present to attack
Becoming vulnerable at the whim of their attacker
Must maintain constant vigilance and safe flying practices 100% of the time to maintain safety

Yeah, those two things are exactly equal...

ummm... doesn't "nerfing local" automatically imply a BUFF to cloaks? As in: you don't even know if you're supposed to whip out your anti-cloaker probes if you don't even see a name in local?

This is something that has me confused for quite some time already: when local gets delayed or certain ships / pilots (cloaked or docked) don't even show up, that's a HUGE buff to cloaked ships, roaming interceptor gangs and regular joe's logged off in your station.

This would certainly have a major impact on all playstyles all the way from deep null to highsec warfare. I'm not opposed to change, but "nerf local, nerf cloak" is really too brief. Please elaborate how the end result would look, in your opinion.

If "nerf cloak" means "make it scannable using an observatory array", then it's not really nerfed at all if the pilot keeps moving. You'd only impact AFK pilots.

If "nerf local" means we have to anchor structures to regain the exact same local we have now, it's only nerfed in those areas of space where we can't anchor them. If it means cloaked pilot won't show up, then by "nerf local" you actually mean "buff cloak". In those areas where nobody in his right mind would anchor anything (FW lowsec for example), I assume "nerf local" means "delayed local" ? Hence, buff roaming gangs?

As you can see, many questions remain unresolved.

Somehow, I keep reading your "if you agree to nerf local I will agree to nerf cloaks" proposition as "if you agree to buff cloaks and roaming gangs, I will agree to not change cloaks unless they're AFK". This sounds like a bad deal.

I tried to find more information in the OA thread but it's all pretty vague at this point. From what I've read, however, I do not believe you'll get the local you want. Consider that CCP caters to many playstyles, and that what you want basically already exists in-game (WHs). I once tried it, and it was not a nice place to be. Being mostly alone in there (which is relevant because if you have the numbers, AFK cloaking also becomes irrelevant), the first sign of trouble usually was the astero scrambling me, followed by a shitload of Legions, Stratioses and Tengu's trying real hard to whore on the inevitable killmail. That was my wormhole career, in a nutshell, and it sounds like that's how you'd like nullsec to be. Not to mention clicking DScan 20 times per minute. Not my idea of good times.

Besides, it makes perfect sense to know there are people in your system; right now we have a perfectly reasonable progression of intel gained the closer to my ship you come. Overview has all the info except cloaked vessels. Then there's DScan, in a 14.3 AU radius, telling you "what" they're flying but not who. The next step is local chat, telling you "who" is in your system, but neither where nor what. And beyond that, you only get vague indications like number of jumps or NPCs killed. I don't know what more you honestly expect? How much more of an advantage do you want to give your cloaked ship? Already we cannot DScan it; the ONLY piece of intel available is that there is "someone" out there. Might be anything, anywhere.

If you cannot see that "nerf local" is a huge buff to hunters, especially cloaked hunters, then I think we're done talking here. Really.

If you, on the other hand, do realise this... then exactly how big of a "nerf cloak" are you willing to put on the line? Make the module cost 300 mil ISK, plus limited fuel, plus reduce implant efficiency by 50% ? Rendering the cyno generator ineffective for the first 80 seconds after decloak? How much nerf would be required to balance out total invisibility in your book?

Please detail your take on the "ideal situation", for further discussion. Thank you.

Which is fine, but those "unfriendlies" should have to be actively playing the game. Simple.

I'm a logi pilot. My gun skills are terrible on this character. Like... really terrible.

lol? Now I'm the one adding tedium? I don;t have a narrow view of anythign about cloaks. I don;t give a flying **** about cloaks. I think AFK players should be logged out, cloaked or not. How is that so difficult for you to understand? Cloak all you want, just be at your ******* PC if you want to stay logged in and affecting other players.

Again, you misunderstand what "PvP" is. You think it's all about firing lasers at each others. You're wrong.

I haven't even asked to nerf cloaks. And of course you would. You're basically saying "Give me a massive and world changing benefit and I'll let you take away something that has nearly no impact on me because I actively play". Anyone would accept that. The long and short of it is that you want local gone so you can easily hunt down unarmed players, yet you have the nerve to call other people bears.

After being shown all the stuff, reposting. Brief look through the topic didn't show similar stuff here.

I'll start it from an unusual point.
EVE Online universe looks close in some points to the Star Trek one, especially old EVE. And the old cloaking visual was resembling the ST universe one.
So... Cloaks there were with different levels of superiority and feature sets, so I suggest an overall change to the system.

All but the best cloaks have some emissions, that allow to counterdetect them. Let's say they "stink", and sensors can smell "cloaky ship somewhere there". This might work even for system-wide scans. The amount of smell might be accumulative, so if a cloaky ship stays in place for long, it would be easier to detect. Also, it should be delayed, just because it makes sense for the "smell-like" detection way.

There should be some cloak detection rating for ship depending on its sensor configuration (sensor strength, scan res, something else?), and some cloak strength for the cloaky ship (depending on some of its own parameters, starting from signature size and up to anything (mass? Makes sense with gravimetric sensors we have), but modified by the cloak itself). Detection should decrease with range, and if detection strength gets higher than cloak strength, the target will appear with decreased signature. Sig will never be the same as for uncloaked ship, let's do it this way:
cloaked sig = coeff * normal sig * (cloak detection - cloak strength) / cloak detection
with coeff being a balance feature to ensure you're not ending up with 120 m sig instead of 135 (kinda useless tradeoff, isn't it?)

Dropping out of cloak.
I suggest this to work this way: prototype cloak deactivates when targeted or hit (smartbombs, anyone?), improved - when shot at or hit, covert - when the pilot wants it, but hits would reduce cloak power.
Cloaky pilot should be notified when he can be detected by someone's sensors or when he's being targeted (I mean target acquiring process), since the cloak should be sensitive to this kind of attention. Passive targeters should be dealt with as they are now with current cloaks (never encountered this issue). Additionally, warp disrupion fields of any kind should probably decrease the cloak strength as well. The 2 km drop rule becomes unnecessary and might be disabled.

Additionally, in ST universe they used sensor networks of a large number of ships to catch cloaky vessels. I think this can be implemented with POS modules or deployables, setting up and controlling such a network can be a big fun. Also, if you don't let it exactly pinpoint target location, it wouldn't really ruin active cloak (given very active defenders).

Possibly, as in star trek nemesis, there should be a very rare super-advanced faction cloak that would allow shooting with some strength penalty while doing so. Maybe not necessarily a covert cloak, but should remain active when hit. I don't think it will bring much imbalance to the game, if priced accordingly.


TL;DR: what I am suggesting is a yet another way to make cloaky ships detectible, but a fun to fly and hunt. I tried to balance things out, and am still concerned about wormholes (I was kinda addicted to cloaks when lived there). I think most issues are addressed, except the geneal cloak hatred from some individuals.

P. S. additional complexity can be made with splitting cloak to sensor-specific versions as well as multispectral, same as our current sensor jammers. That would really make a lot of sense, but I don't really see the need.
Also, t1 covert cloak could be good as well. Possibly moving t2 one to cloaking 5 (or is it already there? I'm not sure)

The idea is fresh in my head, and I might tweak the post a few pore times.