These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Fixing" Cloaking

Author
Black Dranzer
#1 - 2012-01-24 03:27:30 UTC
I don't expect a lot of support for this, but I feel I should at least try.

I believe the issue of "AFK cloaking" is a symptom of a far greater problem - Namely, the fact that, as far as actual stealth mechanics go, cloaking in Eve isn't actually that stealthy.

Typically, stealth implies that your presence is unknown. In most cases, the primary benefit of stealth is not simply that your opponents can't see you, but that your opponents don't even know you're there. In most real scenarios, once you are known to exist, you've already lost your main advantage, even if you haven't been actively found. You can be hunted. People can take actions to protect themselves from espionage.

Now contrast this with Eve. In Eve, even if you're cloaked, people know you're there as soon as you enter a system. That's the primary advantage of stealth gone. But it gets worse - Even when people know you're there, they can't actually hunt you down. The fact that your presence is known does not actually make you any weaker. That's the primary disadvantage of stealth gone. So to recap:


Typical stealth environment:
Unknown to your enemy
Once your presence is known, you can be actively hunted

Eve stealth:
Known to your enemy
You can not be actively hunted


Stealth in Eve is not stealth. It's a quasi-invulnerability field that can only be dispelled under certain circumstances. Not only is it infuriating to those who would seek to hunt cloakers, but the primary benefit of stealth is nowhere to be found. I feel we can do better than this. What I propose is not a simple nerf here or buff there, but a reworking of cloaking to make it into an actual stealth system.

Because all of these changes are highly interdependent, please reserve judgement until you have absorbed all of them, and consider them as a whole, not simply on their individual merits.


The Changes:

Part 1) Remake Cloaking into an actual stealth mechanic:

a) Being cloaked removes you from local.
b) Jump gates do not decloak you on proximity.
c) Using a jump gate whilst cloaked does so silently - The gate does not fire on either side.
d) You can, upon landing in a system, activate your cloak directly from your post-jump cloaked state.

Reasoning:
a) is required for you to actually be a stealth agent. It's impossible to act in stealth if your presence is implicitly known. b), c) and d) are all designed to let you travel between systems without notifying those who may be observing a jump gate.


Part 2) Allow people to hunt cloaked users:

a) Introduce a decloaking module. Effectively a special-case smartbomb with an extreme radius. Give it a significant cooldown and cap usage. Should probably go in a high slot. Upon hitting a cloaked ship, it should not simply uncover the cloaked ship, but also severely cripple them for a duration. At the very least, disable their warp capabilities.
b) Introduce stealth-hunting probes. Literally, probes which can detect stealthed ships. Requires an expanded probe launcher. Detects not only cloaked ships, but also ships which have recently decloaked.

Reasoning:
a) is obvious enough. If you know there's a cloaked person nearby, you should be able to expose them. However, it should not be something that can simply be spammed. Its use should be designed so that it is used primarily when you know there is a cloaked person in the vicinity. It should cripple cloaked ship to avoid an explicit escape. An exposed ship should be vulnerable. b) is for more broad-case detection. Something which is used to sweep large areas. Where the decloaking module is used to expose stealth agents, the probes should be used to discover if there are any stealth agents to begin with.



That's it. They're not exceptionally complex ideas. They're not meant to be. But I feel they solve the major problems of cloaking in Eve. AFK cloakers would lose their teeth, actual stealth and intel gathering would receive a significant boost, and the paranoid could defend themselves.

Or we could just stick with the quasi-invulnerability systems whose primary uses are blockade running and psychological warfare. It's all good.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-01-24 05:59:24 UTC
I agree with the spirit that you have presented your arguement and I assure you, I have considered your entire proposal.

I like the removal of cloaks from local, but I also think that they should not be able to use local themselves, unless there is active converstation going on; basically they get WH local while cloaked. Either that or remove local completely.

Second, Cloaking vessels that 'go deep' as in safe spots and do nothing shouldn't be scanable. I believe that it should be a mix of pilot actions and opponents prep that eventually decloaks the ship. I have outlined this before but will reiterate.

Each cloak is given a cloaking strength, each action drops that strength and strength is repaired by capacitor feeding into the cloak. Once your cloaking strength drops below a certain number, you start to show up on d-scans and can be probed down, basically increasing your signature radius to full when your cloaking strength drops to 0, also you automatically decloak. A notable side effect is that a ship that is decloaked will be capped out. Ships sensor strengths are applied to drop the cloaking strengths of ships in a certain range on grid. This way, active pilots can be seen caught and destroyed while the ability to go afk in a deep safe is retained.

With the modifications of local mechanics pilots wont need to be scanned down in remote locations because there will be no reason to be afk. Instead, the active pilot risks capture while the inactive pilot basically ghosts the system.

Probes make it to easy to spam the button, you need to have passive and active countermeasures as well as the cloaked pilot paying the price for taking actions that may give his location away.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-01-24 06:12:21 UTC
i'll say it again:

AFK cloaking is a legitimate metagaming tactic. If you don't like metagaming, EVE isn't the game for you.

Removing cloaked ships from local makes them overpowered. Simple as that. They will allow you to do recon with absolute impunity - adding the ability to JUMP GATES while cloaked takes this even further.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#4 - 2012-01-24 06:27:27 UTC
Did you actually think about what type of effect your suggested changes would have on different types of gameplay OP? Because I don't think you did.
Black Dranzer
#5 - 2012-01-24 06:30:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Dranzer
Andski wrote:
Removing cloaked ships from local makes them overpowered. Simple as that. They will allow you to do recon with absolute impunity - adding the ability to JUMP GATES while cloaked takes this even further.

Sorry, my bad, I forget that not all Eve players are native English speakers.

"Interdependent" means "Two or more things which depend on each other". To depend on something means to need or rely on that something. When two things are interdependent, that means that each relies on the other, so you can't just have one by itself.

When I said in my post that my suggestions were interdependent, what I meant was that they all relied on each other. Any one of them on their own would be broken for reasons so obvious that I don't even need to elaborate on them.

I hope that clears things up.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Did you actually think about what type of effect your suggested changes would have on different types of gameplay OP? Because I don't think you did.

Well, I obviously lack the ability to comprehend every possible effect of the changes I suggested. That's why I posted it here and not in the assembly hall. I assume you've thought of a particularly bad disruption to existing gameplay that would come out of these changes?
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-01-24 06:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Valea Silpha
Andski wrote:
i'll say it again:

AFK cloaking is a legitimate metagaming tactic. If you don't like metagaming, EVE isn't the game for you.

Removing cloaked ships from local makes them overpowered. Simple as that. They will allow you to do recon with absolute impunity - adding the ability to JUMP GATES while cloaked takes this even further.


Agreed.

Aside from anything else given the state of game mechanics as they currently are, it would essentially be impossible for cloaked ships to not appear in local. The 'rules' of how session changes work are pretty clear, and you have to be decloaked both to jump a gate and to be spit out of gatecloak on the other side. In practice, when you jump a gate, the server despawns your ships from where it was, and respawns another ship with identical stats on the other side.

So with that in mind cloaked ships would ALWAYS appear in local for a brief moment, no matter what. So that kinda torpedoes the whole idea.

As for in principle... Well... If cloaks make you vanish from local then there's all kind of shenanigans that you can get up to that makes the situation worse rather than better.

You see... in concept the idea prevents solo afk cloakers from screwing with 0.0 systems and peoples productivity. But it also means that you can hide infinite people in any given system without causing alarm. Sure, they can't see local, but its not hard to work out what systems are popular. So yeah... you stop solo afk cloakers, but you make it exceptionally easy to kill carebears. I kinda approve of that, but its definitely not a balanced idea.

Even outside of carebearing systems, the problem is obvious. What's better than camping a gate ? Camping a gate and not showing up in local.

Any ship can easilly fit a cloak, and a lot of ships can fit a cloak, and tank and enough SeBos to not notice the cloaking penalty. Soooo, you set up with a couple of cloaked dictors, and you some scouts next door, and suddenly you have a ridiculously effective camp. You don't show up on local, there's nothing to scan, there's no evidence at all that you are here. If anything nasty shows up (they have to warp to you, so someone will see them) then you stay cloaked, and they never even knew you were there.

Like I say, I like that idea. I'd love to run those fleets. But its not fair at all. It's brokenly powerful.

As with all the other proposed cloaking changes, every fix makes a much bigger problem.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-01-24 06:58:38 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Andski wrote:
Removing cloaked ships from local makes them overpowered. Simple as that. They will allow you to do recon with absolute impunity - adding the ability to JUMP GATES while cloaked takes this even further.

Sorry, my bad, I forget that not all Eve players are native English speakers.

"Interdependent" means "Two or more things which depend on each other". To depend on something means to need or rely on that something. When two things are interdependent, that means that each relies on the other, so you can't just have one by itself.

When I said in my post that my suggestions were interdependent, what I meant was that they all relied on each other. Any one of them on their own would be broken for reasons so obvious that I don't even need to elaborate on them.

I hope that clears things up.


I suspect that you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Your gamebreaking ideas "interdependently" screw nullsec over and give cloaked ships impunity. "Oh, this anti-cloaking mod has a 300km range? Alright, I'll park my scouting ship 350km off." The only meaningful change is the removal of cloaked ships from local, which removes their metagaming potential, but gives them too much impunity for recon ops.

Oh and this "anti cloak pulse" would just be a massive nerf to bombers, which are the most effective anti-blobbing tool available to small groups. Thanks, you've made our Maelstrom blob unstoppable by anything short of titans!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#8 - 2012-01-24 17:21:16 UTC
Andski wrote:
Black Dranzer wrote:
Andski wrote:
Removing cloaked ships from local makes them overpowered. Simple as that. They will allow you to do recon with absolute impunity - adding the ability to JUMP GATES while cloaked takes this even further.



The balance point for your idea can be fixed, but you need to realize what it is first.

On the cloaking side, being identified and listed in the system does deprive you of actual stealth. You cannot act with the freedom you should have, as a result.

On the side of potential targets, such as miners, ratters, and those passing through: They deserve some degree of ability to have warning. While cloaked ships are already underpowered to balance their stealth, having no warning before an attack would be considered by many to be too great an advantage to the cloaking vessel.

Balance has always favored players working together, nature of MMOs, this would be no different.

For players in space fought for and currently under control of a friendly alliance / corporation, the work has been done. The system should give you a warning whenever a hostile pilot is present, regardless of cloaking. Your alliance / corp did the work, got SOV, so the local system should give you a warning light or flag to alert you to a hostile presence.

That being said, it should not tell you if it is cloaked, in a pod, or flying a titan. Or how many are present.
If local is going to list all non-cloaked pilots anyhow, and you see noone hostile listed, you now can deduce that the hostile must be cloaked.

If there is a hostile in local, you are already being warned about them. If they happen to have cloaked friends, you have no idea, and you already know you need to do something to cover your butt anyways.

For players not in friendly space: you should expect you are taking a risk. Travel in groups, or take some common sense protection. Consider prayer.
In the cloaking ship's home space, they earned cloaking ships to have every advantage over uninvited guests. Their alliance did the work, so their assets get the advantage.
Liandri Kamadachi
Cry Of Death
Almost Underdogs
#9 - 2012-01-24 20:19:49 UTC
All great ideas, Black Dranzer.

I would also add that if the cov ops pilot ever de-cloaks, or talks in local, they remain in local until they warp out of the system.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#10 - 2012-01-24 20:29:57 UTC
Liandri Kamadachi wrote:
All great ideas, Black Dranzer.

I would also add that if the cov ops pilot ever de-cloaks, or talks in local, they remain in local until they warp out of the system.


An interesting touch, but the pilot must have the opportunity to cloak initially without popping into local.

I assume you are considering a brief grace period for the ship to activate it's cloak upon entering system, by whatever means?
Maybe 15 seconds?