These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7921 - 2016-12-04 22:36:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


I suggested that the OA local is best and in that case those players have to fit a module to impact local reporting, how does that work for you?


I am not sure what you mean by QA local.

Fitting a module to your ship I wouldn't be overly happy with.

Perhaps introducing a new class of ship that is designed to gather intel / disrupt that can fly as part of a fleet, that could be something that I could jump on board with.


OA is a structure.

There has to be a cost and the module created a compromise on fitting, you want the effect fit for it, a specific ship would do the same thing so would work for me.


The OA is an up coming structure that has been strongly hinted at for tracking cloaked ships. It will have fitting slots like citadels and modules will be for gaining or disrupting intel. Most likely you'll have to make decisions on how to fit the thing based on what trade offs you want to accept.

CCP has also strongly hinted at removing local as well in NS almost surely with the arrival of the OA or shortly there after.

Meaning intel would move over to the province of players...where it should have been all along in an ideal world.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7922 - 2016-12-04 22:38:28 UTC
Xcom wrote:
STFU I'm an anti local fan now, fully support its removal cause why not. Lets remove the thing and see what happens. I'm sure nothing will go wrong.


Of course, very few have argued for this.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7923 - 2016-12-05 00:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Xcom
I agree with you!

The first step would obviously be cynos in wormhole space as cynos are the obviousl counter to afk cloaky camping not being a problem in that segment of space.

Then we should recognize the connection between bridges and local, and allow both player controlled bridges and player controlled local intelligence arrays to be put in worm hole space because cloaky camping is the only counter to local so local has to be player deployed and destroyable in that space.

You might say that wormholers would have to HTFU. But that would just be mean.

*Cynos in wormhole space to make afk cloak campers more relevant.
*Then destroyable local and destroyable jumpbridges in wormhole space
*Then nerf afk cloaky camping because local can be destroyed in wh space, so there is a counter besides afk cloak camping.

A perfect plan!

CCP should start changing the wormhole ecosystem and cloak mechanics immediately.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7924 - 2016-12-05 01:37:10 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Xcom
I agree with you!

The first step would obviously be cynos in wormhole space as cynos are the obviousl counter to afk cloaky camping not being a problem in that segment of space.

Then we should recognize the connection between bridges and local, and allow both player controlled bridges and player controlled local intelligence arrays to be put in worm hole space because cloaky camping is the only counter to local so local has to be player deployed and destroyable in that space.

You might say that wormholers would have to HTFU. But that would just be mean.

*Cynos in wormhole space to make afk cloak campers more relevant.
*Then destroyable local and destroyable jumpbridges in wormhole space
*Then nerf afk cloaky camping because local can be destroyed in wh space, so there is a counter besides afk cloak camping.

A perfect plan!

CCP should start changing the wormhole ecosystem and cloak mechanics immediately.


As much as I enjoy sarcasm, It's not the w-space pilots that are crying for nerfs...

Wormholer for life.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7925 - 2016-12-05 04:09:58 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Xcom
I agree with you!

The first step would obviously be cynos in wormhole space as cynos are the obviousl counter to afk cloaky camping not being a problem in that segment of space.

Then we should recognize the connection between bridges and local, and allow both player controlled bridges and player controlled local intelligence arrays to be put in worm hole space because cloaky camping is the only counter to local so local has to be player deployed and destroyable in that space.

You might say that wormholers would have to HTFU. But that would just be mean.

*Cynos in wormhole space to make afk cloak campers more relevant.
*Then destroyable local and destroyable jumpbridges in wormhole space
*Then nerf afk cloaky camping because local can be destroyed in wh space, so there is a counter besides afk cloak camping.

A perfect plan!

CCP should start changing the wormhole ecosystem and cloak mechanics immediately.


As much as I enjoy sarcasm, It's not the w-space pilots that are crying for nerfs...


Sperghul can't see your posts, he has you blocked, FYI.

Sperghul doesn't realize that when a new entrance to a WH opens up it is quite like a cyno, it can bring in lots of unpleasantness and you may not know about it unitl you scan with your probes again. He is somebody who likes to tell "just so" stories as fact and spew nonsense about which he knows nothing...and when confronted with facts from those who actually have lived in places like wormholes...he blocks them.

Sperghul lives in a bubble/echo chamber where only his own voice is heard repeatedly validating his own worth....given he has such little self worth. Right Brokk?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Xcom
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7926 - 2016-12-05 04:51:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:

WTF am I reading hahaha. You want people to just role over and die?


Nobody wants this at all. This is just errant dishonest nonsense and you spew it because you can't put forward a well thought out and logical argument.

Well baltec1 wants to remove local so he can get a jump on null sec pve activity. I disagreed with him before but now I have come to my senses. Remove local! PvP is boring when people can warp before I can point them. Its the best feeling when you get into optimal of that stupid idiot who thought null sec was going to be fun before I decloak on his a*s. With local its no fun, people shouldn't get a warning that I'm using a cloaked ship. Meaningful pvp is pvp where I am the one who picks the fights, why should my opponent choose to warp away. Noone should get any warning of my arrival until that moment when I hit the decloak cause otherwise pvp in null sec is ruined and I have to AFK and force people to ignore me till I can get a jump on people.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7927 - 2016-12-05 08:16:32 UTC
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7928 - 2016-12-05 08:32:57 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Xcom wrote:

WTF am I reading hahaha. You want people to just role over and die?


Nobody wants this at all. This is just errant dishonest nonsense and you spew it because you can't put forward a well thought out and logical argument.

Well baltec1 wants to remove local so he can get a jump on null sec pve activity. I disagreed with him before but now I have come to my senses. Remove local! PvP is boring when people can warp before I can point them. Its the best feeling when you get into optimal of that stupid idiot who thought null sec was going to be fun before I decloak on his a*s. With local its no fun, people shouldn't get a warning that I'm using a cloaked ship. Meaningful pvp is pvp where I am the one who picks the fights, why should my opponent choose to warp away. Noone should get any warning of my arrival until that moment when I hit the decloak cause otherwise pvp in null sec is ruined and I have to AFK and force people to ignore me till I can get a jump on people.


No, Baltec would prefer the status quo. I disagree with him on that one, but without any change to local I agree that we should keep cloaking as is.

I feel the current situation is sub-optimal and that a change could help make NS a more interesting and vibrant place. People need to feel safe deploying stuff in NS and also undocking and doing stuff in NS. At the same time intel should not be impervious to other players. If a group will not defend their intel infra-structure then it is unlikely they'll defend their space and will likely be attacked seriously shortly there after.

So you can take your glib and stupid inanities and put them up your posterior, thanks.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7929 - 2016-12-05 08:34:08 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?


Nope, stupid. Next bad idea...?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7930 - 2016-12-05 09:16:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?


Nope, stupid. Next bad idea...?


So explain why this is a bad idea or why it is stupid, what are the pro's and what are the cons? From my perspective the issue is hot drops, remove that and local can go etc., perfect...

People drone on about living in null having to work as a team, but that should apply to attackers too, baltec1 can whine about a solo guy in a Stealth Bomber all he wants but this change will make attackers have to work as a team in a proper roaming fleet.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7931 - 2016-12-05 09:50:22 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?


Nope, stupid. Next bad idea...?


So explain why this is a bad idea or why it is stupid, what are the pro's and what are the cons? From my perspective the issue is hot drops, remove that and local can go etc., perfect...


You wipe out most of the capital use and render black ops useless.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7932 - 2016-12-05 09:54:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?


Nope, stupid. Next bad idea...?


So explain why this is a bad idea or why it is stupid, what are the pro's and what are the cons? From my perspective the issue is hot drops, remove that and local can go etc., perfect...


You wipe out most of the capital use and render black ops useless.


Why?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7933 - 2016-12-05 10:09:19 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Let me repeat what I said earlier as a better design for this game if we do not have local:

Quote:

If I was designing this game I would make it so jump capable cap ships could only jump to Citadels that have the cyno gen and remove that ability from ships, so yes they can move through gates to their final target. It means that conflict between major powers becomes very focused on forward operating bases and the like, then we could have the long range back and no fatigue and more interesting campaign battles.

BLOP's is more of an issue, the ability to jump to covert cyno arrays is one way to do it, but personally I would remove hot drops as a game play.

I would expect that is too radical for you old players..., but with this I would happily wave good bye to local and all that other free intel on the map too, like NPC kills in the last hour, people in system and what not.


Are CCP brave enough to do this, perhaps, they made the decision to allow capitals to jump through gates, now they just have to take the next step and adjust the cyno mechanisms.

For me this would be a much better game and revitalise roaming which is what we all want, isn't it?


Nope, stupid. Next bad idea...?


So explain why this is a bad idea or why it is stupid, what are the pro's and what are the cons? From my perspective the issue is hot drops, remove that and local can go etc., perfect...

People drone on about living in null having to work as a team, but that should apply to attackers too, baltec1 can whine about a solo guy in a Stealth Bomber all he wants but this change will make attackers have to work as a team in a proper roaming fleet.


Look how the GSF respond. When a carrier or other ships that an light a cyno then there is no problem.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7934 - 2016-12-05 10:13:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Teckos Pech wrote:
Look how the GSF respond. When a carrier or other ships that an light a cyno then there is no problem.


I suggested that no ships can light a cyno, array or citadel cyno's only. Not an issue...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7935 - 2016-12-05 11:15:36 UTC
Xcom wrote:

Well baltec1 wants to remove local


Only if you nerf afk cloaking as it would mean there is no counter to local.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#7936 - 2016-12-05 11:18:52 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Why?


Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

You just killed a lot of pvp, again.
Prince Kobol
#7937 - 2016-12-05 11:52:56 UTC
In regards to Black Ops, do we have any stats on there usage.

Would be interesting to see how kills v losses they take.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7938 - 2016-12-05 12:39:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Xcom wrote:

Well baltec1 wants to remove local


Only if you nerf afk cloaking as it would mean there is no counter to local.


If you can shoot the OA there is a counter to local.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#7939 - 2016-12-05 12:54:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Why?


Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

You just killed a lot of pvp, again.


Is that the best defence you have against wanting a more strategic game rather than theme park battles

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7940 - 2016-12-05 13:02:15 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Why?


Most of the capital content is them being dropped on another capital. Dropping on stuff is the entire point of black ops even existing.

You just killed a lot of pvp, again.


Is that the best defence you have against wanting a more strategic game rather than theme park battles


All of your ideas are about advanced warning or delaying/removing the hotdrop. You really do want to PVE in 100% safety.

Wormholer for life.