These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
First pagePrevious page8910
 

What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...

First post
Author
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#181 - 2014-08-27 18:10:18 UTC
Please stop linking the existence of 'local' chat with modules, ship abilities, or other in-game elements.
Local chat is there, yes, in-game, but it is not a balancing tool or a game mechanic. It is an injection from outside the game's reality to allow the *people* playing the game to communicate. In the beginning it was decided that in order to facilitate communication amongst players and help foster a community feel, the developers included the ability to chat with other player's in the same system & constellation as you.)

Yes, we can talk about changing local-- and imo we should, i think it should be like wormhole local is. Blank till used. An actively engaged medium.

When you (and I speak collectively, not necessarily just the OP or the other bright young posters here) link local chat's existence to ship balance you dilute the arguments for removing/changing local into simply the drivel of, well, to be blunt, scared little carebears.

Secondly, any suggested change that touches on fifteen different elements and modules and ship abilities is guaranteed one of two outcomes: to never move past the forums, or be implemented in a horribly bad way in which all sides feel like they just got had.

The existence of the cloaking device module and how it is used is a completely disparate subject.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#182 - 2014-08-27 18:25:50 UTC
Kell Braugh wrote:
Please stop linking the existence of 'local' chat with modules, ship abilities, or other in-game elements.
Local chat is there, yes, in-game, but it is not a balancing tool or a game mechanic. It is an injection from outside the game's reality to allow the *people* playing the game to communicate. In the beginning it was decided that in order to facilitate communication amongst players and help foster a community feel, the developers included the ability to chat with other player's in the same system & constellation as you.)

Yes, we can talk about changing local-- and imo we should, i think it should be like wormhole local is. Blank till used. An actively engaged medium.

When you (and I speak collectively, not necessarily just the OP or the other bright young posters here) link local chat's existence to ship balance you dilute the arguments for removing/changing local into simply the drivel of, well, to be blunt, scared little carebears.

Secondly, any suggested change that touches on fifteen different elements and modules and ship abilities is guaranteed one of two outcomes: to never move past the forums, or be implemented in a horribly bad way in which all sides feel like they just got had.

The existence of the cloaking device module and how it is used is a completely disparate subject.

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.
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#183 - 2014-08-27 18:38:10 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

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

The thread's topic is What if Local Chat Changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
I bolded the important parts.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

Would those changes include local? It is possible.

So you acknowledge that the 'solution' in your eyes to 'problem' of 'imbalance' to cloaked ships would possibly "includ[ed] changes to local"-- but then deny you are talking about changing local.

I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile your OP with your last post, keep in mind, sharing accounts is against the EULA.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#184 - 2014-08-27 18:50:16 UTC
Kell Braugh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

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

The thread's topic is What if Local Chat Changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
I bolded the important parts.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

Would those changes include local? It is possible.

So you acknowledge that the 'solution' in your eyes to 'problem' of 'imbalance' to cloaked ships would possibly "includ[ed] changes to local"-- but then deny you are talking about changing local.

I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile your OP with your last post, keep in mind, sharing accounts is against the EULA.

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.
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#185 - 2014-08-27 19:19:11 UTC
I wasn't taking ownership of the premise that they were anything but balanced. Also, I brought up sharing accounts since it seemed your OP and your post above seemed to come from two different people with how out of sync they were.

The purpose and intent of my original post was to point out that you can, and imho should discuss the mechanics surrounding cloaked ships and the interactions that you can and/or cannot have with them while not involving a discussion on a completely different and un-related subject such as local.

The truth is, in the end, the fact that currently all ships, cloaked and uncloaked show up in local is the only way that you know someone is there is system with you. They may be afk sleeping or taking their girlfriend out to a much needed date night, or they could be 15km off your stern, coordinating with a black ops gang a couple systems away and planning your demise. You just don't know. Now you know the paranoia that comes when you don't have that unrelated feature called 'local chat'. Ask someone who lives in a wormhole how they feel about cloaked ships. :)

You are right that given two ships, both cloaked in the same system, they are at a stalemate. The resolution comes when one of them attempt to gain the upper hand, uncloaking to drop probes to find some asset to attack, uncloaking to travel between systems in search of softer or more inviting targets, uncloaking to drop a bomb or attack some unsuspecting ship, or-- yes sadly, uncloaking because they are just tired and log. I do not believe the game requires a mechanic to force the hand of either party to make that first move.

Covert affairs can be some of the most exciting mexican standoff situations Eve offers, and, again, humbly, I say nothing needs changing. I'm allowed to disagree and I've given my reasons why I disagree.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#186 - 2014-08-27 19:48:20 UTC
Kell Braugh wrote:
...

Covert affairs can be some of the most exciting mexican standoff situations Eve offers, and, again, humbly, I say nothing needs changing. I'm allowed to disagree and I've given my reasons why I disagree.

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.
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#187 - 2014-08-27 20:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kell Braugh
I have a great deal of experience with both null sec. I have experience camping a system for days waiting for the best time to strike, and with being camped in and having to deal with the risk of operating while 'under watch'.

I also have a great deal of experience being 'that recon sitting off the enemy POS/jump bridge' for hours on end waiting for troop movements to spring a trap'. I'm pretty confident in my perspective of how the mechanics work and the playstyles it entails.

That being said, I do agree there are ways we could improve the aforementioned mechanics for fun and profit. I will however inject a major caveat in my stance in saying that the improvements to this system should be very very aware than the changes would not just be for cloaked ships if it infringes on local chat.

For the sake of making my point, let us posit that local in all space followed the same mechanics that it does in wormhole space today. That is a massive change to cloakers, to fleets moving around, to solo roamers burning through the large swaths of null sec in search of a juicy target in a belt. In essence, the directional scanner would become the 'new local' and would require you to be spamming scan to get the latest intel (assuming non-cloaked) ships.

On another point, I disagree that 'walls' as you put them, are innately a bad thing. Reinforcement timers are walls. You cannot do ANYTHING to the structure during that time, but does it stop player interaction? No. It actually builds the player action to a beautiful crescendo of laser fire, missiles blazing thorugh space, and tear-inducing ship explosions.

I guess my biggest counter-argument is to assure you that, as far as i know, they haven't successfully made a PvP automation routine to kill you while the pilot was afk watching re-runs of Breaking Bad- so you can rest assured the wall you speak of is only there for as long as the attention span of the humanoid on the other end, which is pretty low.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#188 - 2014-08-27 20:51:53 UTC
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.
Netan MalDoran
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#189 - 2014-08-27 23:54:05 UTC
IB4L Twisted

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

Zylona Femtov
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2014-08-28 07:31:28 UTC
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...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2014-08-28 08:59:18 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

How much repetition should be needed so that a PvE player can feel secure against threats?



I have to say that a PvE player should never feel secure against threats, at least not without some fleet/gang support and even then it should only be security based on not doing something stupid.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#192 - 2014-08-28 13:16:44 UTC
Zylona Femtov wrote:
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...
Nofearion
Tr0pa de elite.
Pandemic Horde
#193 - 2014-08-29 09:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nofearion
one thing I love about eve, No matter where you are there is always that uncertainty of knowing when you undock that something will happen or not. I love the challenges. I think most of you who read the forums and bother to post do as well.
Cloaked ships are a good part of the game. Useful in many ways.
However, intentionally or unintentionally there has become a balance of sort.
Facts -
When entering a system you appear in local chat in all systems except WH - this is regardless of skill, modules or type of ship.
When more than 2500 km from any object you can cloak.
When Cloaked there currently is no mechanic or technique or play style that will allow for a cloaked vessel to interact with its environment or vise versa.
In my opinion this can and does lead to boring game play.
I think the object here is not to feel secure as a PVE or a cloaked pilot, but to find new ways to interact with each other.
What if local changed?
to me that is not the reason I left WH space. I think there needs to be balanced Intel mechanics introduced into the game to replace what local does for you now. once that is done no one will really care what happens to local past the chat part.
I digress that is for a Different thread than this one.
I do ask that everyone keep in mind, that no one in this thread or any other thread I have read have a desire to destroy EVE or ruin the game. I think we all are looking for ways to improve it.
If the game never changes or improves that will destroy it as it will no longer be fun.
My two cents.
Keep up the good work Nikk
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#194 - 2014-08-29 18:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Kell Braugh
Nofearion wrote:

I do ask that everyone keep in mind, that no one in this thread or any other thread I have read have a desire to destroy EVE or ruin the game. I think we all are looking for ways to improve it.
If the game never changes or improves that will destroy it as it will no longer be fun.


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.
Damen Apol
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2014-08-29 19:04:42 UTC
not gunna read the thread

throwing this out there

the lock time delay is stupid, if they see the ship, just approach it boom decloaked

if the hutner module is on you won't decloak someone? have a friend warp to you

if the hunter module is on you won't be warpable to? have the friend already there orbitting youa t 500m
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#196 - 2014-08-29 19:24:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
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.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#197 - 2014-08-29 19:36:39 UTC
Damen Apol wrote:
not gunna read the thread

throwing this out there

1> the lock time delay is stupid, if they see the ship, just approach it boom decloaked

2> if the hutner module is on you won't decloak someone? have a friend warp to you

if the hunter module is on you won't be warpable to? have the friend already there orbitting youa t 500m

Ah, well, I will try to guess at what you refer to, as in context to this thread it is not entirely clear.

1. The lock time delay: This has no meaning without more context.
If you refer to a gate camp, the gate cloak effect would not be vulnerable to this module.
If it is not a covops ship, they had to decloak in order to warp anyhow.
If it is a covops ship, you need to have your lock time better than their time to warp, and be in range with a point, if you plan on stopping them.
If you are able to physically intercept them instead, yes you will decloak them by proximity.
Since you have no control over where they pop up, and cannot see them while under gate cloak, it is a random element in many cases regarding how possible this is to do.

2. The hunter module does not decloak a target. It does, however, allow you to lock a target. By locking the target, your ship systems are able to disrupt the cloak the same way it does currently.
Having a buddy warp to you, is highly improbable to have them coming from just the right direction to land within 2000 meters of the target ship. That ship can see you, and would likely be making efforts to avoid a hostile that knew how to locate them as you must have.

I did not understand that last line, sorry!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#198 - 2014-08-29 19:51:05 UTC
Kell Braugh wrote:
...

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

...

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.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#199 - 2014-08-29 19:52:39 UTC
Quesa wrote:
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?

...

Please consider making a thread for this.

I would be happy to contribute towards your idea, in that context.
First pagePrevious page8910