These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Black Ops Little Things - now with Covert Cyno update

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drosal Inkunen
Spreadsheeters
#221 - 2013-01-30 15:10:55 UTC
Kerdrak wrote:

Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

*cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship? That would make us quite useless. Though, I'll admit it did seem rather weird to me at first that it didn't use anything.

The problem is that if we lost cap while being cloaked we wouldn't be able to actually set up bombing runs or get into position for an attack very well. Bombers especially are paper thin. Without the cloak we die easily. If people just had to wait 2 minutes for us to decloak bombers would just get slaughtered and not be able to fight back.

I know your post is about AFK cloaking, but this would be a serious problem to actively playing cov ops ships.
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#222 - 2013-01-30 15:14:03 UTC
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:

Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

*cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship?


I stopped reading here.
Drosal Inkunen
Spreadsheeters
#223 - 2013-01-30 15:49:28 UTC
Kerdrak wrote:
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:

Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

*cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship?


I stopped reading here.

Ok, so clearly the answer is yes.
I now have to ask why you would be pushing for cap usage while cloaked then?
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#224 - 2013-01-30 16:04:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kerdrak
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:

Would be awesome that cloaked ships couldn't recharge cap while cloaking devices had cap usage.

*cough* Have you ever flown a covert ops ship?


I stopped reading here.

Ok, so clearly the answer is yes.
I now have to ask why you would be pushing for cap usage while cloaked then?


The idea is to avoid afk cloakers that stay totally safe for hours and other behaviours, not crippling strategy. So the point is giving it a very low cap consumption, like the damage control, but make cap recharge 0 while cloaked.
Maybe covert ops cloaks could have a bonus to not stress too much (you know, warping around could be a problem), but the idea of a ship that can be cloaked and immune to other eve players at will always pissed me off.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#225 - 2013-01-30 16:10:20 UTC
Kerdrak wrote:
The idea is to avoid afk cloakers that stay totally safe for hours and other behaviours, not crippling strategy. So the point is giving it a very low cap consumption, like the damage control, but make cap recharge 0 while cloaked.
Maybe covert ops cloaks could have a bonus to not stress too much (you know, warping around could be a problem), but the idea of a ship that can be cloaked and immune to other eve players at will always pissed me off.



An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone, and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2013-01-30 16:13:35 UTC
There are plenty of whine threads about AFK clockers out there already please don't further degenerate this thread with that topic.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#227 - 2013-01-30 16:30:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).

RubyPorto wrote:
and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#228 - 2013-01-30 16:44:28 UTC
Kerdrak wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).

RubyPorto wrote:
and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.


Then you weren't AFK, were you? So an AFK cloaker has still never hurt anyone.

Without AFK cloaking, Local tells you who's in space and who's active. With AFK cloaking, Local only tells you who's in space. See how AFK cloaking counters Local's use as a perfect intel tool? It makes it impossible to tell who's active in space.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Drosal Inkunen
Spreadsheeters
#229 - 2013-01-30 16:47:00 UTC
Kerdrak wrote:
Drosal Inkunen wrote:

Ok, so clearly the answer is yes.
I now have to ask why you would be pushing for cap usage while cloaked then?


The idea is to avoid afk cloakers that stay totally safe for hours and other behaviours, not crippling strategy. So the point is giving it a very low cap consumption, like the damage control, but make cap recharge 0 while cloaked.
Maybe covert ops cloaks could have a bonus to not stress too much (you know, warping around could be a problem), but the idea of a ship that can be cloaked and immune to other eve players at will always pissed me off.


Ah, I see what you mean. That I could get behind more. The problem would still be warping. Possibly having the cloak active makes warps cost less or something. It would make things more challenging to fly cov-ops, potentially in a good way.
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#230 - 2013-01-30 16:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kerdrak
RubyPorto wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).

RubyPorto wrote:
and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.


Then you weren't AFK, were you? So an AFK cloaker has still never hurt anyone.

Without AFK cloaking, Local tells you who's in space and who's active. With AFK cloaking, Local only tells you who's in space. See how AFK cloaking counters Local's use as a perfect intel tool? It makes it impossible to tell who's active in space.


The thing is that only you (obviously) know when you are afk or not, other players assume you are AFK or risk theirselves.

EDIT: I know this matter have been discussed for years, and many people is bored of it (including me) but there are plenty of reasons to keep debating about this. At least under my point of view (and many others).
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#231 - 2013-01-30 23:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: TravelBuoy
RubyPorto wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).

RubyPorto wrote:
and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.


Then you weren't AFK, were you? ,,,


Its a blabla. The other players dont know who is AFK or not. So, the emeny cloaker in their system always a possibly danger.
And yes they can do economics damage without playing, when maybe they AFK and when the other player in system is active but got disadvantage and wont risk because he dont know the cloaker active or not. When AFK player can terrorize an active player its a bad game feature.
Its time to create a counter against AFK cloakers, because so many players sit in enemy systems without play and they almost always AFK, because they dont have risk to cloak.
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-01-31 01:02:20 UTC
Yes, we need to make sure we nerf AFK Cloaks. They can destroy your ability to generate isk 0.0. Which has more isk generating potential because it's supposed to be risky, but I don't feel I should actually have to incur any risk. It is completely reasonable for me to expect to be able to have the best of both worlds when it comes to risk and reward. If I have at least one functioning eye ball (or a screen reader for the blind) and am conscious I should be able to avoid any risk, 100% of the time, in 0.0. In fact, I don't think local goes far enough. If someone enters system who is not blue, there needs to be a box that pops up asking if I'd like to dock/safe up, like the confirmation on low sec gates.

As soon as a cloaky afker comes into system, you must dock up immediately. You have to. Otherwise you might... you might... I'm sorry, it's hard for me to type this, my hands are shaking so hard just thinking about it. Whew. Okay, you might have to engage in non-consensual pvp! Can you even imagine that!? What sort of barbaric non-sense is this? Everyone knows in civilized warfare both parties agree to a fighting ground and set terms for the engagement before hand. That's how gentlemen behave. These people who fly these cloaky ships are without scruples!

Cloaky AFKers are capable of camping a system for 3 days until I get used to them and then they can kill my fully insured raven costing me a tiny fraction of the amount of isk I farmed over those three days while his character was sitting there completely useless. Obviously, this is overpowered and it has to stop.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have go log onto my alt to insult people who play in highsec, letting them know they are carebears before I go back to ratting while watching local like a hawk. That isk my renter alliance pays won't get into the corp wallet itself!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#233 - 2013-01-31 01:43:23 UTC
TravelBuoy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).

RubyPorto wrote:
and AFK cloaking is the counter to Local's use as a perfect intel tool.

AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.


Then you weren't AFK, were you? ,,,


Its a blabla. The other players dont know who is AFK or not. So, the emeny cloaker in their system always a possibly danger.
And yes they can do economics damage without playing, when maybe they AFK and when the other player in system is active but got disadvantage and wont risk because he dont know the cloaker active or not. When AFK player can terrorize an active player its a bad game feature.
Its time to create a counter against AFK cloakers, because so many players sit in enemy systems without play and they almost always AFK, because they dont have risk to cloak.



That's the entire point.
AFK cloaking turns local (+d-scan)from "I know who's in system and active" into "I know who's in system, but not who's active."

See how the first is much more useful than the second? See how your complaint simply makes my point for me?

By the way, the only fix for AFK cloaking that doesn't result in Local becoming that perfect intel tool is to simply remove local.

Local is the counter to AFK cloakers. Knowing that they could be there means you can adjust your habits.
AFK Cloaking is the counter to using Local as a perfect Intel tool.
There's a really nice symmetry there.

An AFK cloaker is at no risk only while he doesn't do anything. As soon as he tries to do something, he's put himself at risk.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Dring Dingle
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2013-01-31 05:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Dring Dingle
Probs been suggested / asked a bazillion times b4.... but why not let blackops hop around highsec? / let covert cynos in high sec?

only bombers / covert ops / stealthy -t3's would be able to join in,

Could make high sec pew pew more interesting, and have the same repercussions as using a neutral logi alt on anyone who is at war. - Suspect flag, or for that matter lighting any covert cyno would incur a suspect flag.

Just a thought,

- Dringy.

[Edit] : t2 cloaky haulers would be able to jump straight in from null... might be an issue,
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#235 - 2013-01-31 08:25:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Alice Katsuko
All of the changes look good, except the increased jump range, about which I am rather ambivalent.

Black Ops battleships are rather underpowered given the SP and ISK investment involved, and this will make them much more useful, if not more potent.

But a black ops fleet is already almost impossible to catch or counter, and sometimes even to detect before it strikes. A proper black ops fleet can pick and choose its targets and, backed by a Falcon or two, can extract itself with minimum losses. In this day and age of pervasive spies, trying to set a trap for any fleet is a silly notion, but never know. Semi-AFK alts allow a black ops fleet to camp systems with impunity, forcing the inhabitants to either move systems, log off, or play Polish Roulette if they are within jump range of a hostile staging system.

A cloak-equipped ship cannot be caught unless either its pilot does something very silly, or is extremely unlucky. The cloaked pilot has all of the advantages, and no real disadvantages. He can choose when and where to decloak, and can always avoid a fight and cloak back up; his pursuers must remain ever-vigilant if they hope to catch him, even if the cloaked pilot goes on vacation for a week, because they have no way to tell when he will be back. Similarly, a black ops fleet can spread alts throughout a region and go AFK for an hour, and there is nothing anyone can do about it except wait for them to strike. It is the safest and most risk-free way of carrying out ganks.

So before black ops ships are boosted further, mechanics should be introduced allowing players to hunt down cloaked ships. Maybe some sort of new probes, launcher, and specialist ship that can see cloaked ships -- an uncloaked bomber is already a pain to scan down, so a competent bomber fleet wouldn't be terribly affected; but a black ops battleship (or that AFK-cloaked Pilgrim) might be at risk if it idles too long in one spot.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#236 - 2013-01-31 08:39:39 UTC
Alice Katsuko wrote:

But a black ops fleet is already almost impossible to catch or counter, and sometimes even to detect before it strikes. A proper black ops fleet can pick and choose its targets and, backed by a Falcon or two, can extract itself with minimum losses. In this day and age of pervasive spies, trying to set a trap for any fleet is a silly notion, but never know. Semi-AFK alts allow a black ops fleet to camp systems with impunity, forcing the inhabitants to either move systems, log off, or play Polish Roulette if they are within jump range of a hostile staging system.


Put a Rattlesnake with a cyno in system.

Park it in a Forsaken Hub. Do what Rattlesnakes usually do.

When that cloacky alt comes in, get ready, cyno up on both sides, unleash a couple ECCM'd armor T3s and like 2/3 Guardians and you're good to go. You'll get at least half of that shiny T2 battleship fleet.

Alternatively, you can do that with a bunch of regular Tier 3 Battlecruisers and like 4/5 Logis.

It's all about baiting. When you bait a Blackops fleet, you know where the fight is going to happen, you know what they're going to bring, you know what you are going to bring, and you know if you can take on them or not.
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-01-31 09:19:51 UTC  |  Edited by: TravelBuoy
RubyPorto wrote:
TravelBuoy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Kerdrak wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
An AFK cloaker has never hurt anyone

That's not true.
Example: I have left my alt cloaked for days in a system until the locals got used to it. Then I simply uncloaked behind one and killed it (using a pilgrim).
AFK cloaking is not a counter, it's simply a player that decides unilaterally when to expose to other eve players.


Then you weren't AFK, were you? ,,,


Its a blabla. The other players dont know who is AFK or not. So, the emeny cloaker in their system always a possibly danger.
And yes they can do economics damage without playing, when maybe they AFK and when the other player in system is active but got disadvantage and wont risk because he dont know the cloaker active or not. When AFK player can terrorize an active player its a bad game feature.
Its time to create a counter against AFK cloakers, because so many players sit in enemy systems without play and they almost always AFK, because they dont have risk to cloak.



That's the entire point.
AFK cloaking turns local (+d-scan)from "I know who's in system and active" into "I know who's in system, but not who's active."

See how the first is much more useful than the second? See how your complaint simply makes my point for me?

By the way, the only fix for AFK cloaking that doesn't result in Local becoming that perfect intel tool is to simply remove local.

Local is the counter to AFK cloakers. Knowing that they could be there means you can adjust your habits.
AFK Cloaking is the counter to using Local as a perfect Intel tool.
There's a really nice symmetry there.

An AFK cloaker is at no risk only while he doesn't do anything. As soon as he tries to do something, he's put himself at risk.



More blablbla. The local is the perfect intel tool ? ROTFL
No thats not. LLocal is the counter against the AFK cloaker ? What ? :DDDD
Newer was, you dont see on local, enemy AFK or not. Remove local ? More give a big red I-Win button for cloakers ? WTF u talking about ? The real answer is, the active player has risk in system, but AFK cloaker is not, because uncatchable.

God save us, when a big alliances such the Goon or other big entities starting new tactics for kill the full EVE 0.0 economics and go to loading up all 0.0 systems with AFK cloaker alts.
I would look at it how you would be crying when at least 10 AFK cloaker poisoning every 0.0 system where you live.
And this is the new trend.
Inactive players disturbing the active players when they dont play, its a bad game mechanics.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#238 - 2013-01-31 09:26:35 UTC
TravelBuoy wrote:
More blablbla. The local is the perfect intel tool ? ROTFL
No thats not. LLocal is the counter against the AFK cloaker ? What ? :DDDD
Newer was, you dont see on local, enemy AFK or not. Remove local ? More give a big red I-Win button for cloakers ? WTF u talking about ? The real answer is, the active player has risk in system, but AFK cloaker is not, because uncatchable.

God save us, when a big alliances such the Goon or other big entities starting new tactics for kill the full EVE 0.0 economics and go to loading up all 0.0 systems with AFK cloaker alts.
I would look at it how you would be crying when at least 10 AFK cloaker poisoning every 0.0 system where you live.
And this is the new trend.
Inactive players disturbing the active players when they dont play, its a bad game mechanics.


Can you name a counter for local's use as an intel tool other than AFK cloaking?

I said that removing Local is the only feasible way to get rid of AFK cloaking as it is the only counter to local's use as an intel tool. I didn't say that I advocated that change.

The AFK cloaker is not at risk because he is not doing anything. Just like you're not at risk when sitting AFK in your station.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#239 - 2013-01-31 11:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
CCP Fozzie wrote:
A couple questions I can quickly answer:

  • No this is not the "done" state for black ops. The covert cyno change is just another little things tweak in the interim.

  • I don't think we have the bandwidth to change slot layouts on blockade runners this patch, but it's something to consider when we rebalance transport ships later.

  • Bombers are getting a 50% CPU reduction, so the end result will be exactly the same.




    • A 50% CPU reduction on Bombers? Is that a typo and you meant '50 CPU reduction' cause a Cov Ops Cloak uses 50 CPU on a Bomber?

    Because if not, people won't be able to use an expanded probe launcher on a Bomber anymore. At least not without slapping a good chunk of coprocs on it.


    Edit:

    And no, end result wouldn't be exactly the same if you just reduce it by 50 cpu. Maybe there are people out there that use coprocs to get the cpu to fit some modules. If you reduce the CPU of the bombers, the inital fittings will all be the same. However, coprocs will then give less CPU than they do now and will maybe make some seriously tight fittings unfittable anymore. To be fair, i don't have such a fitting lying around. But the possibility is there that this change will affect some very specialized bomber fittings.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #240 - 2013-01-31 14:18:12 UTC
    RubyPorto wrote:
    TravelBuoy wrote:
    More blablbla. The local is the perfect intel tool ? ROTFL
    No thats not. LLocal is the counter against the AFK cloaker ? What ? :DDDD
    Newer was, you dont see on local, enemy AFK or not. Remove local ? More give a big red I-Win button for cloakers ? WTF u talking about ? The real answer is, the active player has risk in system, but AFK cloaker is not, because uncatchable.

    God save us, when a big alliances such the Goon or other big entities starting new tactics for kill the full EVE 0.0 economics and go to loading up all 0.0 systems with AFK cloaker alts.
    I would look at it how you would be crying when at least 10 AFK cloaker poisoning every 0.0 system where you live.
    And this is the new trend.
    Inactive players disturbing the active players when they dont play, its a bad game mechanics.


    Can you name a counter for local's use as an intel tool other than AFK cloaking?

    I said that removing Local is the only feasible way to get rid of AFK cloaking as it is the only counter to local's use as an intel tool. I didn't say that I advocated that change.

    The AFK cloaker is not at risk because he is not doing anything. Just like you're not at risk when sitting AFK in your station.


    I'd say that the nature of the risk posed by the afk cloaker has changed over the years. It's gone from 'you might be caught and killed by the cloaker' to 'you might be caught and killed by the titan hotdrop from the cloaker's cyno'. I've lived in 0.0 with cloakers since they were first introduced into eve, and i simply make sure that i have an appropriate fit on my ship- once that meant a pvp fit and the hope of a fight; now sadly it means fitting to run away fro a blob.

    When some things remain static, like local, and other things change, like the nature of the threat, then an imbalance is created. I do not want to see afk cloakers removed, it's healthy. I would prefer to look forward to a fight from the final result.