These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Cloaking Improvements

Author
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#41 - 2012-02-20 00:51:26 UTC
Lyrrashae wrote:

[..regarding BlackOPs Battlships..]
Yes to CovCloaks, as it would expand their options for use, hopefully making them more popular--and get more of them urp-sploded in the process: Oh look, Father, little Lyrra might have found us another ISK/materials-sink! How precious!--balanced by the fact that you're risking a lot if you take them into combat, and their combat-ability is nothing special.

Increase bridging range/fuel-efficiency, as this would expand their role in that, also making them get used more.


Seems quite reasonable to me. Do you think if BlackOps got a CovOps cloak they should lose their cloaked speed bonus or not?


Gerrick,

The Dark Arts are being employed by those who would see us crushed into dust. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, so embrace your necromantic powers and raise the glorious dead my friend! Twisted ....or forever have to read about "fuel for cloaks" Shocked
Ms Mirple
Sedition Ventures
#42 - 2012-02-20 15:25:44 UTC
While I am not totally against your Idea. Would you agree to constellation chat as a sort of Intel Channel then as removing local would make Intel completely broken. It wouldn't tell you what system the cloaked person is in but would let people know there are people about. Also if you want it so you don't know who is in your system would you agree that people holding sov space should be able to put up permanent defenses up. Think of it like trying ot sneak through the English Channel in WW2 it had a ton of sonar nets and other defenses in place. I think this would be the only fair compromise so it would make being a stealth ship more challenging but also more rewarding. I am back and forth on the idea of letting black ops use covert cloaks. It makes sense but at the same time would make them OP in my opinion. I would like to fix the ship from being just a fat cyno ship into something more useful as the name implies that it is supposed to work behind enemy lines but it really doesn't do this atm. I do agree that all cloaking ships should have 0 second delay on lock time let recons be the ship they are meant to be.
shadowace00007
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
Federation Uprising
#43 - 2012-02-20 15:55:04 UTC
Xorv wrote:


* All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V.

* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)


I like these 2 but not the first. all should stay the same but when cloaked if you broadcast location everyone in fleet will see where you are on the overview so you can avoid your squad mates.

Why I say this is I used my Cloki to decloak a Cloki and killed him simply because I saw the direction he started to go. so when I got close enought we both opened fire. and I also have decloaked 2 or 3 Probe ships with that same idea with the C loki. and if they could see me they would just move out of the way or if we where both cloaked then we would pass by each other.

Born Amarrian Raised Minmatar.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#44 - 2012-02-20 16:47:21 UTC
I would suggest a two pronged approach to the cloaking VS local issue, since modifying one without the other would leave it unbalanced.
(Keep in mind, both are effectively broken as far as many players are concerned, but they are broken in a way that balances each other in a crude way)

Remove cloaked pilots from local. Cloak goes on, local stops listing. Cloak goes off, local shows them. In some cases, it will make their names flash in and out, which would draw attention to them for some.

Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings.
Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention.
(It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention)
Ms Mirple
Sedition Ventures
#45 - 2012-02-20 16:56:43 UTC
That is an interesting way to make it balanced. I just think the OP of this thread doesn't care about balance and just wants cloaking ships to be over powered. I still think constellation chat should be the new local and with your idea of D scan as a early warning then it would make cloaking ships effective with out completely breaking intel for null sec.
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#46 - 2012-02-20 17:16:53 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings.
Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention.
(It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention)

I like this part, and think it should be in the game even if the first part is not.

It would be cool in WH's, and players could become a lot more self reliant and ignore the so called AFK Cloaking issue.
(Seriously? As long as they are actually AFK who cares! I am worried about the attentive and alert cloaking pilot a whole lot more...)
Ms Mirple
Sedition Ventures
#47 - 2012-02-20 18:56:25 UTC
I don't think this how It was intended as Carebears don't need more ways to make them safer. there needs to be a stronger threat of losing your shinny toy when you are out in null or WH space. I just don't think the idea of removing local completely with not implementing a way for some form of intel to be relayed.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#48 - 2012-02-20 19:07:50 UTC
Ms Mirple wrote:
I don't think this how It was intended as Carebears don't need more ways to make them safer. there needs to be a stronger threat of losing your shinny toy when you are out in null or WH space. I just don't think the idea of removing local completely with not implementing a way for some form of intel to be relayed.

Agreed, my theory needs both sides for balance.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#49 - 2012-02-23 00:15:58 UTC
Ms Mirple wrote:
While I am not totally against your Idea. Would you agree to constellation chat as a sort of Intel Channel then as removing local would make Intel completely broken. It wouldn't tell you what system the cloaked person is in but would let people know there are people about. Also if you want it so you don't know who is in your system would you agree that people holding sov space should be able to put up permanent defenses up. Think of it like trying ot sneak through the English Channel in WW2 it had a ton of sonar nets and other defenses in place. I think this would be the only fair compromise so it would make being a stealth ship more challenging but also more rewarding


I would not agree that Local Chat Intel should become Constellation Chat Intel. Local Chat should be used for chatting and nothing else, there should be no free Intel attached to it all. Local Chat as it is now is completely broken, removing it would fix EVE bringing it to line with most other games in areas of utilizing stealth and intel gathering. Posters act like if Local Intel were gone they'd have no intel tools left, it's as if they've never used DScan.

Should people holding Sov space be able to put up defenses? Yes, but they should require active participation, upkeep and defense. You'd have to give me details to say whether I would really support what you have in mind. But the English Channel is not a great example to start from, people have swam across that. Maybe you want to stick with your WW2 analogy the North Sea would be a little more balanced.


Ms Mirple wrote:
That is an interesting way to make it balanced. I just think the OP of this thread doesn't care about balance and just wants cloaking ships to be over powered.


No, I'm just trying to balance the ability to use stealth up to par in EVE as it is in every other MMO with PvP that I've played. Can you name me one PvP focused MMO where the ability to use stealth is weaker than it is EVE? Can you name me one MMO with PvP that have Avatars that can go invisible or use some other from of game mechanic induced stealth that are weaker than those we have in EVE? If you're struggling here to think of one, maybe it isn't me that doesn't care about balance...
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-02-23 07:27:40 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I would suggest a two pronged approach to the cloaking VS local issue, since modifying one without the other would leave it unbalanced.
(Keep in mind, both are effectively broken as far as many players are concerned, but they are broken in a way that balances each other in a crude way)

Remove cloaked pilots from local. Cloak goes on, local stops listing. Cloak goes off, local shows them. In some cases, it will make their names flash in and out, which would draw attention to them for some.

Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings.
Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention.
(It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention)


Like it except that I think the time between cycles should depend on the angle of the scan, shorter the angle the shorter the scan time. 360 should update about every 8-10 seconds while anything 30 and below should update everysecond. Also other means, beyond d-scan, should be made to actively gather intel on active targets. My idea is that activity on the part of the cloaker weakens his cloaking field and may allow him to be located with some cat and mouse tactics by the defenders. There should be nothing in the form of probes that locate cloaked ships in safe spots as it defeats the purpose of cloaking.

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

Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-02-23 10:10:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:
afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve,



!!??????

I live in low sec, and when when I'm online alone or with only a few corps mates I/we run some plexes, and you know what every one can jump you on any moment.

I thought 0.0 was to be the dangerous part of New Eden?
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-02-23 10:12:23 UTC
Nullbears do nothing but whine when they cannot rat in peace. Lowsec and W-space are the most dangerous places in eve unfortunately.

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

Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#53 - 2012-02-25 02:27:30 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Lyrrashae wrote:

[..regarding BlackOPs Battlships..]
Yes to CovCloaks, as it would expand their options for use, hopefully making them more popular--and get more of them urp-sploded in the process: Oh look, Father, little Lyrra might have found us another ISK/materials-sink! How precious!--balanced by the fact that you're risking a lot if you take them into combat, and their combat-ability is nothing special.

Increase bridging range/fuel-efficiency, as this would expand their role in that, also making them get used more.


Seems quite reasonable to me. Do you think if BlackOps got a CovOps cloak they should lose their cloaked speed bonus or not?


Gerrick,

The Dark Arts are being employed by those who would see us crushed into dust. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, so embrace your necromantic powers and raise the glorious dead my friend! Twisted ....or forever have to read about "fuel for cloaks" Shocked


Yes, they should lose the speed-bonus if CovOps'ed. That's in-line with all the other CovCloaked ships: No cloaked-speed penalty, but no speed bonus either.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

TurAmarth ElRandir
Hiigaran Bounty Hunters Inc.
#54 - 2012-02-29 15:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: TurAmarth ElRandir
AFK Cloaking/Cyno Balancing

OK, the basic issue is not that cloaking as a mechanic is 'broken',
it's not that having a pilot in a system who cannot be 'found' is scary;

It is the use of cloaking AND cyno together that is the core issue people have with AFK Cloaking. A pilot in a cloaked ship at a well made safespot is COMPLETELY SAFE from attack by defending pilots until he decides to uncloak. If he then uses a cyno, the ships that come in, can avoid using defendable gates or closable wormholes in order to enter and leave the system anywhere in that system... this is, of course, the EVE famous "hotdrop". When the cloaky/cyno pilot hotdrops a PvP fleet onto PvE ships or mining shps, the aggressors have an unbalanced advantage.

OK, so change the cloak & cyno mechanic so that NO SHIP IN EVE CAN FIT A CLOAK AND A CYNO AT THE SAME TIME.

This is the simplest solution... CPU needs for a cloak are extreme and require a special ship type... ok, a slight change to the Cynosaural Field Generator module and if any cloak is fitted, active or not, a cyno CANNOT ever have enough CPU to be onlined even with a full set of CPU mods in the low slots.

Cloaks and cloaking is totally unaffected in W-space.

In null, AFK Cloakers are not affected in thier intel gathering and safety while cloaked... they just can't be the focal point of an indefensable incursion by a fleet into a system anymoar.

You want to light off a cyno? Have your cloaky make a BM or sit on the desired warp in point and, in order for you to get the 'reward' of a hotdrop, your cyno ship has to 'risk' the run through the gate/hole then the run to the cloaky or BM and THEN you can light off your cyno and make with the violencing of boats... and the people in the system have a chance to organize a response.... fight back or dock up. Don't like em docking up? Fine... keep your fleet in there and you can 'risk' that to carry out your Income Denial Op instead of ONE lone AFK char... Risk = Reward, = Balance.

Who knows? Mebbe the ability of the defenders to actuallly fight back in PvP fitted ships instead of being hotdropped in PvE ships might just stir up a response and get you some PvP... only on moar balanced terms for all....

You may now rage and cry about how unfair this would be... how I want to nerf your gameplay... how I suc at life because I want to fight back inna PvP fit ship.

TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#55 - 2012-03-01 00:35:07 UTC
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:
AFK Cloaking/Cyno Balancing


"AFK Cloaking Balancing" is directly tied to balancing the broken Intel system caused by Local Chat.

I partially agree with your position on Cynos, but as much as I would love a new role bonus for Recons that would suit my personal needs more, your suggestion is way over the top and breaks the whole Black Ops gang concept.

I have suggested elsewhere that Warp Scrams/Disruptors jam ships from lighting Cynos, and there are other suggestions out there, most of which are much more balanced than yours.

Anyway I agree that there should be a means of stopping the enemy from dropping massive reinforcements right on top of you beyond very quickly blowing them up. However, I also think that there should be means to bypass the crappy gate system and get fleets into enemy territory. I also think that those PvEing in Null should very much be vulnerable to PvP predation.
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-03-01 05:01:24 UTC
Xorv wrote:
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:
AFK Cloaking/Cyno Balancing


"AFK Cloaking Balancing" is directly tied to balancing the broken Intel system caused by Local Chat.

I partially agree with your position on Cynos, but as much as I would love a new role bonus for Recons that would suit my personal needs more, your suggestion is way over the top and breaks the whole Black Ops gang concept.

I have suggested elsewhere that Warp Scrams/Disruptors jam ships from lighting Cynos, and there are other suggestions out there, most of which are much more balanced than yours.

Anyway I agree that there should be a means of stopping the enemy from dropping massive reinforcements right on top of you beyond very quickly blowing them up. However, I also think that there should be means to bypass the crappy gate system and get fleets into enemy territory. I also think that those PvEing in Null should very much be vulnerable to PvP predation.



Possible solution to the cyno hotdrop issue is to limit the amount or mass of ships that can be bridged onto a single cyno.

On topic: cloaks need to be detectable but not easily, and especially not easily at gates (detectable does not necessarily mean findable, but some sort of warning is needed). Local needs to lose its current 100% perfect intel, and dscan needs improving a heck of a lot. Most importantly though, these things need to happen at the same time.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-03-01 10:34:07 UTC
Hotdrops could be addressed with a simple spool up timer.

Cloaking detectability could be addressed with a system that makes it so active pilots can be detected on d-scan, using there actions to potentially weaken their cloak to the point that they give themselves away. Scanning, warping, moving, and yourown sensor strength could all be contributing factors.

Agreed that cloaking modifications and removal of local intel be done at the same time.

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

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#58 - 2012-03-02 00:54:08 UTC
Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:
Possible solution to the cyno hotdrop issue is to limit the amount or mass of ships that can be bridged onto a single cyno.


Personally my only issue with Hotdrops is in its effect of enhancing the power having more numbers. Cloaks should primarily be for the few to overcome the many. Being able to use a cov cyno to get behind enemy lines is a good feature. Players being able to drop big fleets and even caps right on top of of small gangs is not.

There's probably lots of ways it could be made better, I still like my idea of being able to jam the lighting of a cyno beacon with warp scrams/disruptors. In regard to cloakers and cynos, making new CovOps ships or variants of existing ships that can't fit a cyno but instead gain greater capabilities to operate as solo threats would another means of reducing the threat of hotdrops, while giving solo and small gang cloakies a much deserved boost.

As to removing Local Chat Intel, it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned even without any other changes removing it would be a very good thing. Not that I'm against a reasonable means of cloak detection, I just don't see it as something that is required to remove Local.

Fade Toblack
Per.ly
The 20 Minuters
#59 - 2012-03-02 12:23:11 UTC
Xorv wrote:
* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)


Make it work both ways.

If you cloak you get removed from local, and at the same time you can no longer see or use local?

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#60 - 2012-03-02 20:45:19 UTC
Fade Toblack wrote:

Make it work both ways.

If you cloak you get removed from local, and at the same time you can no longer see or use local?


No I don't think that's the best path. Local Intel should be removed entirely for everyone regardless what kind of ship they're flying. CovOps ships shouldn't be the only ones able to avoid the very badly designed Local Chat mechanics, the whole thing just needs to be scraped.
Previous page123