Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Please post comments about local in a thread focused on that topic.

This thread is NOT about changing local, or why local should be changed.

This thread is about detailing a means to hunt cloaked vessels, and does nothing more than acknowledge popular belief that such a hunting ability would require other changes in game for balance.

Would those changes include local? It is possible.
But local chat is specifically not the topic of discussion for this thread.

Your premise is flawed.

Cloaked ships are in balance already.

This thread is dedicated to improving the play experience, as balance alone is not the defining characteristic for good play, but also that resolution to conflicting goals be possible.

Currently, a cloaked ship in specific context can be one of the key components of a stalemate.
A stalemate is one of the absolute forms of balance, as it can be maintained so long as all of the aspects remain stable.

Great for balance, but not so much for conflict resolution, which is an equally important part of game play.

Also... why do you bring up sharing accounts? I have no interest in using your account.

I have serious doubts that you understand the direction of this thread, assuming you read the OP as you described.

Perhaps you have not been involved in sov null aspects of cloaking, perhaps you are someone who enjoys WH play currently.

Right now, cloaking itself is, (in many ways), like logging out of the game.

Your ability to interact with things becomes limited, as does the ability of others to interact with you.
In many circumstances, these limits translate into absolutes. You often can't affect a cloaked player without them first removing this effect.
Absolutes, in this game context, are the same as a wall. You cannot go past them, so expectations of resolutions need to stay inside their limits.

I am not saying local has to change, but I do point out that expanding options for cloaking interaction while leaving it intact would very likely trivialize cloaking as a play element.

I see great potential for cloaking, done with a few adjustments.

I also feel the status quo cannot be defended as an absolute, since this denies change and growth. Just because you like the way something is now, does not mean it cannot improve so you or others of like mind can also benefit.

My primary interest in this thread, is to define what would be the optimum balanced method for hunting a cloaked ship.

It is not to change balance, but to enhance resolution options both for the cloaked player, and those opposing a cloaked player.
Balance already exists, which means it needs to be trimmed and tweaked at all connecting aspects to be maintained.

Does this entail effort? Your perspective on this may vary, but I feel I must answer that question best with another question.
How much effort should be needed from each side, in order to support a satisfying resolution to conflicting goals?
In many cases, resolution is not possible for either side, save that their opponent errors.
The cloaked player is powerless to make the PvE player leave their security, just as the defenders of that space cannot force the cloaked player to shut down their cloak.
Both sides have defenses that are such well informed absolutes, that neither can affect the other directly.
This stalemate is what I view as the problem needing attention.

How hard should the cloaked player need to work, to get to his target in sov null?
How much repetition should be needed so that a PvE player can feel secure against threats?

I would like to see a degree of effort needed from both sides, so that whichever player tried harder in the right direction, had the genuine advantage for that encounter.

I feel both sides require too little effort to know safety, and this is the heart of the issue.

Cloak is here to stay, that a backbone of the game.

And if it's kill your nerve, well play something else.
If you have a problem with it, its you the problem.

You can't kill someone because its cloaked, well that's life...

So, you read the title, that's a start at least...

I agree. We are all looking for ways to make the game better for all parties involved (which on a sidenote I was thrown off by someone thinking this thread was gonna get locked. Maybe they haven't seen two sides disagree without flaming each other and/or showing disrespect in a while)

As for arguments placed in favor of needing something new to trigger action past a deadlock, I just respectfully disagree.

From the perspective of the cloaked ship, they make a decision to have that ability only at the cost of loosing a lot in terms of offensive and defensive capabilities. This is very similar to other forms [in the abstract, i consider cloaking also to be a form of] eWar. The covert flavors if you will give up a lot. I think most sane pilots will agree that, for instance, the Curse is a much better ship than the pilgrim, the Lachesis is better than the Arazu, etc. in terms of base stats, and fitting capabilities. I will give you that some are not as pronounced as others, but the general point remains-- ships that can fit covert ops cloaks, come pre-nerfed because they can fit a covert ops cloak. And ships without this role that fit the non-covert ops variants get massive penalties to targeting and speed.

By giving up these abilities and stature, the ship gains its ability to move around a system freely without being seen, and, baring a mistake like getting de-cloaked, it gets the unwritten bonus of being able to choose when to strike (or not) at the cost of knowing that when it does, it, on average, will be at a big disadvantage compared to its non-covert cousin.

In that last point is where I see that the balance of this mechanic lies. Sure-- we could think of some new mechanic to nerf that unwritten bonus, but at that point, you also are nerfing the ship role/class as a whole and we would be loosing a very dynamic element in Eve.

--

If it was to be guaranteed (with all implants, factions, items, ship bonuses, etc.) that a probe scan would never get a warpable signature, I may be on board supporting the ability to 'scan' for cloaked entities with probes to be able to know, in general, where they were in system, i.e. within some .25AU of a certain location. This scan should also not at all hint to or disclose the cloaked ship's type, class, or anything. Call it an 'unknown sensor disruption' or something. As far as ongrid detection, I stand by my previous views that it is the covert ship's prerogative to decide when to uncloak.

I'd much rather base this off of radiation emissions. If we suppose that Eve's cloaking technology works by bending light around it's hull and trapping it's own emissions then couldn't we work this into a d-scan type procedure where instead of scanning for readily identifiable signatures, you're scanning for thermal signatures?

Those ships which sit still will eventually trap so much radiation that the area around their ship will begin to increase in temperature (it's thermal signature) and in order to slowly and safely bleed this off without emitting a large enough thermal signature to track, it must be moving so the heat can dissipate instead of accumulate and eventually bloom.

Larger ships would put out larger amounts of heat thus ships like a cloaked super-carrier would become detectable far quicker than a cloaked carrier, etc etc. I think those ships designed to be reconnaissance hulls (those ships which can fit covert ops cloaks) should be much more difficult to detect and ships like covert ops frigates/bombers should be nearly impossible.

Thermal scanning skills could be easily introduced in the scanning skills group.
Skills to Add:

• Thermic Signature Pinpointing
• Thermic Signature Rangefinding

I see this utilizing the ship scanning equipment already available in the game as well as the d-scan when a pilot switches to 'thermal view' in which ships/deployables/wrecks visually emit a thermal signature if caught in the d-scan angle and the thermal disparities will be more pronounced and thermal signatures will increase in resolution (looking more and more like a ship and less like a blob of color) as the d-scan angle tightens.


As for local chat, I'd love for it to change to a wormhole type chat. It's a far too cheap and simplistic way to gather mountains of intel and nearly erases any need for proper reconnaissance and utilization of combat scanner probes.

Another thing that could use a change is the combat scan times. They are far too quick and the time it took to scan down a ship (on the same grid) prior to the scan probe change was pretty good. IIRC it was about 40 seconds with max skills.

I respect your opinion.

As a player who has experience on both PvE and cloaking in null, I would like to offer a way for players to interact that did not rely on either pilot error or mutual inactivity waiting on pilot error.
(They undock after 15 hours, assuming you must be AFK. If they are wrong, you might get a kill. If you are AFK, then your being there is pointless beyond making them uncomfortable)
Their current tool set forces them to make a blind choice, rather than being able to earn a more informed decision.

If we want blind choices, with only two real outcomes, we could spend our time flipping coins rather than flying spaceships.

I would prefer a more effort driven encounter, where both sides operated in shorter bursts of activity.
No 23 hour Cloaked AFK camp tied in with less of a time sink for PvE.

Both sides have a balanced opportunity to get what they want, as with any interesting game, and the details along with the results determined by who made the better effort.

I can't say I know of anyone who looks forward to playing, by not playing. They may like the idea that someone else is tormented and unwilling to undock, but they aren't actually there to see it first hand for the most part.
I find that style far too passive, and prefer something that actually offers a better chance for resolution within a typical gaming session.