These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post
Author
Ned Black
Driders
#101 - 2014-02-20 13:18:41 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Athena Momaki wrote:
I agree with taking out local. Local should be gone in all systems unless you talk. just like in WH. It would open a whole new game play.



For the absolute LAST TIME.

No local in wormhole space works for a reason. This reason is that wormhole space is far more controled than nullsec. In wormholes there are no titans bridging 1000 man fleets around, there are no supercarriers cynoing onto your triage carriers, there is no 1000 man blobs anywhere because of the mass limits.

In wormhole space you can also close off your system by rolling wormholes. There are no constant connections, and no way to turn one frigate into 250 battleships (titan bridge). This results in an evironment where entrances can be monitored, and fair warning given to people in system. In nullsec, where anyone can bridge any number of people to a single frigate with a cyno fit, there is nothing controlling traffic, and for this reason removing local is a bad idea.

If local were removed the carebears would move to highsec and run incursions. Similar isk with next to no risk, vs a nullsec system where any number of people could be waiting to cyno on top of you. There would be a week long shooting gallery, followed by total silence as the carebears flee from nullsec.

What about PVP? How are you to know if there is a target to shoot without scanning out the entire system (there are massive systems out there, ever been to Venal? One system has a 280 AU warp between two gates there. That's a lot of room to hide.)

In short, removing local in nullsec would turn it into an even more barren wasteland than it is now.
No local works in WHs because of the things that make WHs great, the changing "gates", the mass limitations, and no f*cking titan bridges.


Nullsec isn't wormhole space, so stop trying to make it into wormholes space in one regard while ignoring the parts necessary to make it work.


Common sense is only common to those who have it.

(And for the record, I primarily live in a wormhole, and anyone who compares nullsec to wormhole space in any regard shows their ignorance of how wormholes work. That's not an insult, its just a fact.)


EvE is the only game I where the "safe" area is a lot more dangerous than the "dangerous" area... The people living in the "dangerous" beats themselves on their chests about how "dangerous" their place is and tells the people in the "safe" area to suck it up when they lose their stuff... yet if someone even suggests that CCP should make the "dangerous" area actually dangerous the amount of tears coming from that "dangerous" area would be enough to drown a fish.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#102 - 2014-02-20 14:42:37 UTC
Ned Black wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
For the absolute LAST TIME.

No local in wormhole space works for a reason. This reason is that wormhole space is far more controled than nullsec. In wormholes there are no titans bridging 1000 man fleets around, there are no supercarriers cynoing onto your triage carriers, there is no 1000 man blobs anywhere because of the mass limits......

.....Common sense is only common to those who have it.

(And for the record, I primarily live in a wormhole, and anyone who compares nullsec to wormhole space in any regard shows their ignorance of how wormholes work. That's not an insult, its just a fact.)


EvE is the only game I where the "safe" area is a lot more dangerous than the "dangerous" area... The people living in the "dangerous" beats themselves on their chests about how "dangerous" their place is and tells the people in the "safe" area to suck it up when they lose their stuff... yet if someone even suggests that CCP should make the "dangerous" area actually dangerous the amount of tears coming from that "dangerous" area would be enough to drown a fish.

I always found it endlessly amusing how some so-called wormhole dwellers claim that the absence of local is only possible to balance in a wormhole.

As if players lack the ability to adapt, and the absence of local dictated the presence of all the other aspects in that space. It really assumes a staggering amount.

Be that as it may, this thread is not about advocating the removal of local, but instead works out the details affecting cloaking should local stop reporting the presence of cloaked ships.
M1k3y Koontz
Stay Feral Mining Logistics and Manufacturing
Stay Feral
#103 - 2014-02-20 14:47:36 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
So what the hell its wrong with cloaked ships?


in wormholes people deal with and against cloaky ships all the time without local and no one complains.

that stuff about cloaky nerfs its getting annoying seriously...


In wormholes there are no titan bridges bringing 50 battleships onto a single PVE tengu. In WHs, there are no BLOPs drops. In WHs, an enemy has to come through a WH which you can close. Last I checked, gates can't be shut down.

WH =/= Nullsec, stop trying to compare the two. Apples and oranges.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#104 - 2014-02-20 14:53:00 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Ager Agemo wrote:
So what the hell its wrong with cloaked ships?


in wormholes people deal with and against cloaky ships all the time without local and no one complains.

that stuff about cloaky nerfs its getting annoying seriously...


In wormholes there are no titan bridges bringing 50 battleships onto a single PVE tengu. In WHs, there are no BLOPs drops. In WHs, an enemy has to come through a WH which you can close. Last I checked, gates can't be shut down.

WH =/= Nullsec, stop trying to compare the two. Apples and oranges.

Wrong thread.

If wormholes and null are apples and oranges, why are you discussing them in a shoe store?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#105 - 2014-03-18 13:46:46 UTC
As an observation, I have noticed that anti cloaking threads do persist.

At too many points, the answer in them seems to be remove the play opportunity, so everyone has fewer options and must play alike.

This enables a countermeasure, in exchange for limiting a proven creator of stalemate situations.

Is it perfect? Of course not!

A perfect solution would remove a player's ability to use effort for better results.
This just provides the opportunity for players to oppose each other, instead of avoid each other.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#106 - 2014-03-18 14:52:35 UTC
Reverse Gate Camping, or containment protocol.

This is something enabled by this idea, which could be effective against cloaked ships who do not prepare against it.

Since the gate cloak is exempt from this painting module, another possible point of capture is to set a bubble near an expected exit gate, and let a hunting ship tag cloaked vessels thinking to cross undetected.

Cloaked ship, in theory, is contained since it either avoids crossing a bubble and being exposed, or risks destruction after being revealed.

We players can adapt tools to do more, when they have flexibility.
Rahh Serves
Doomheim
#107 - 2014-03-18 15:39:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rahh Serves
first of all we can deal with cloakys in wh without local is not valid for 0.0 since cloakys in 0.0 can light a cyno and a blob can and will come

local is to op i dont think so in all cases some profesions have even with local a hard time making a living in 0.0 space

lets see for miners some seconds delay means death without exeption this would not be a problem when hidden belts would be hidden but since this is not the case the removel of the local would mean lots of exploding barges even with d scan spamming

and befor some guys think dont mine alone have pvp guys with you dont talk bullshit in my 4 to 5 years of eve i have never NEVER seen a pvp pilot protecting mining ships

while its true the that local provides a powerfull intel tool while in whs this tool is not needet you guys need to think
of alot viewpoints

Remove the local means a lot of dead miners without exeption even in skiffs
ano pilots can fly in pvp fits and shoot back miners dont have that ability

whs dont need maintains costs or large scale wars with caps
0.0 has a large cost and needs alot of logistic effort

in 0.0 space are also small corps with 10-20 members
they dont have the resources for a scout or a few scouts out there

if the local is removed we need a other tool that provides intel on the same level or more with a large cost and if its 200-300mio isk per month per system
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#108 - 2014-03-18 16:24:55 UTC
Rahh Serves wrote:
first of all we can deal with cloakys in wh without local is not valid for 0.0 since cloakys in 0.0 can light a cyno and a blob can and will come

local is to op i dont think so in all cases some profesions have even with local a hard time making a living in 0.0 space

lets see for miners some seconds delay means death without exeption this would not be a problem when hidden belts would be hidden but since this is not the case the removel of the local would mean lots of exploding barges even with d scan spamming

and befor some guys think dont mine alone have pvp guys with you dont talk bullshit in my 4 to 5 years of eve i have never NEVER seen a pvp pilot protecting mining ships

while its true the that local provides a powerfull intel tool while in whs this tool is not needet you guys need to think
of alot viewpoints

Remove the local means a lot of dead miners without exeption even in skiffs
ano pilots can fly in pvp fits and shoot back miners dont have that ability

whs dont need maintains costs or large scale wars with caps
0.0 has a large cost and needs alot of logistic effort

in 0.0 space are also small corps with 10-20 members
they dont have the resources for a scout or a few scouts out there

if the local is removed we need a other tool that provides intel on the same level or more with a large cost and if its 200-300mio isk per month per system

Hi there, Rahh Serves!

This thread does not discuss the actual removal of local, a common mistake made by some.

Rather, it discusses how to handle cloaked vessels in the event that they are no longer automatically exposed by local.
This has been pointed at, by many, as the balance aspect needed to hunt cloaked vessels.

It has also been pointed out, by myself, that this idea for a module is not needed in wormholes, as they have a play dynamic that most want undisturbed.

If you want to view a thread suggesting the basic local balance aspect needed, I have that thread here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739

If you would like to see a thread I created detailing my version of improved sensor tools, please look here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread


Thank you for posting!

Rahh Serves
Doomheim
#109 - 2014-03-18 17:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rahh Serves
well sry for that i only read two sites

if a cloaky should be shown in local is also up to the viewpoint
in my opinion every one should be shown in local if he comes via gate
passes a station and or office or pos etc or short only peoply coming via wh or cyno should not be shown

until they are seen
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#110 - 2014-03-24 14:38:12 UTC
Unlocking after a support ticket as the OP wishes to amend the post to not be a duplicate.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#111 - 2014-03-24 14:42:49 UTC
SHE LIVES!!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#112 - 2014-03-24 15:01:08 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
Unlocking after a support ticket as the OP wishes to amend the post to not be a duplicate.

I appreciate the opportunity to fix the misunderstanding.

More than one player had assumed this was simply an anti-local thread, which it truly never was.

It simply reflects what I consider the most logical means to hunt cloaked ships, using a mirror image inspired mechanic based off of cloaking itself.

Please note the change to the OP, which specifies more clearly this intent.

Big smile
Chris Zanjoahir
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2014-03-24 17:44:17 UTC
Can anyone explain to me how a scanning fix would not work? If it took, ~10-15 minutes to scan down a cloaky, and appropriate balance was there, would that not work?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#114 - 2014-03-24 20:19:16 UTC
Chris Zanjoahir wrote:
Can anyone explain to me how a scanning fix would not work? If it took, ~10-15 minutes to scan down a cloaky, and appropriate balance was there, would that not work?

Under current mechanics, this assumes that the cloaked player is to be limited to relatively active gameplay.

It blocks the cloaked player from working any meaningful observation post, as the points to be observed are often quite obvious.
(Gates, POS's, Outposts, etc)

Cloaked players, frequently, are not in ships intended to be used in combat except as a last resort, so this would effectively flush cloaked vessels from a system.

Sequence of events:
Start: Cloaked player arrives, and is spotted in local as usual.
2 Min: Concerned local residents arrange for a ship able to scan as you describe.
5 min: All probable grids for observation cleared.
8 min: All probable grids for ambush cleared.
10-15 min: Cloaked player either located and destroyed, or forced to flee.

Probable result: Cloaking now limited to get in, take a quick look, then get out.
As this is not a satisfying play style for many players, as well as shifting a strong advantage over to evasive tactics, fewer players are able to threaten PvE assets.
With less obstacles to filter ore, null mining efforts get dumbed down along with pricing. The only threat to mining high value ore is that your buddy reaches it before you, and you cannot remain for the respawn.

That does not sound appealing to me, and this from strictly a miner's perspective.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2014-03-24 20:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gigan Amilupar
Wouldn't this break cloaky ambushes on supers? You know, where someone warps a cloaked HIC to a super logoff and waits for said super to log back on so they can get tackle.

Also, this post is always relevant.

Edit: I suppose it also breaks all other uses of cloaks too, including but not limited to: Running gatecamps, scouting, ganking, cloaked gatecamps and of course waiting out timers so your super can safely log off (the part of me that says death to all supers debates this last one). Oh and bombers too.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#116 - 2014-03-24 21:03:53 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Wouldn't this break cloaky ambushes on supers? You know, where someone warps a cloaked HIC to a super logoff and waits for said super to log back on so they can get tackle.

Also, this post is always relevant.

Edit: I suppose it also breaks all other uses of cloaks too, including but not limited to: Running gatecamps, scouting, ganking, cloaked gatecamps and of course waiting out timers so your super can safely log off (the part of me that says death to all supers debates this last one). Oh and bombers too.

Why would you assume these things?

For starters, noone would see the cloaked pilot in local, under any of the versions with local being adjusted for balance to this idea.
Your current example has the pilot plainly listed, even if noone can find them.

At what point, do you find supers logging back in without a scout?
If they do, this won't change anything, they still get nailed.

As to the other aspects you bunched together, they remain quite intact.

No cause for alarm observed.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#117 - 2014-03-24 21:40:05 UTC
No.

The genesis for threads like this comes from a bear being afk camped by some guy in a cloaked frigate or getting nuked by a cloaked gate camp...or having a bomber point your JF/Carrier on a cyno beacon and get dealt a death blow by Danilaw (although that Nyx is no longer among us). Occasionally a drive-by Titan DD is what generates this junk.

I get it. You want a counter to cloaking. The truth is that cloaking is the counter to camps and insta-locking silliness. Please for the love of god and all that is holy stop trying to counter a counter with a counter because you can't handle being countered by the counter.

Cloaking counters:
- Insta-lock camps (usually)
- blob mechanics
- AFK ratting carriers/tengus/whatever you're in
- AFK plexers in FW-space
- and many more
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2014-03-24 22:04:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Wouldn't this break cloaky ambushes on supers? You know, where someone warps a cloaked HIC to a super logoff and waits for said super to log back on so they can get tackle.

Also, this post is always relevant.

Edit: I suppose it also breaks all other uses of cloaks too, including but not limited to: Running gatecamps, scouting, ganking, cloaked gatecamps and of course waiting out timers so your super can safely log off (the part of me that says death to all supers debates this last one). Oh and bombers too.

Why would you assume these things?

For starters, noone would see the cloaked pilot in local, under any of the versions with local being adjusted for balance to this idea.
Your current example has the pilot plainly listed, even if noone can find them.

At what point, do you find supers logging back in without a scout?
If they do, this won't change anything, they still get nailed.

As to the other aspects you bunched together, they remain quite intact.

No cause for alarm observed.


For supers - presently even if they log in with a scout they cannot tell if someone is on grid or not, only if someone is in system courtesy of local (I'm anti-local, but the point is still valid). Basically, this makes it so that now they can log on a cloaky-detector on grid and use it to see if there is a cloaked hic or something there waiting for them, which is currently not possible.

For gatecamps - a cloak detector allows people to find cloakies trying to run the blockade.

For scouting - a cloak detector allows you to know if someone is watching your POS.

For ganking - having a cloak detector alt would make it virtually impossible to sneak up on someone in a cloaky-proteus/tengu or recon ships. This would also be a detriment to blop-drops.

For cloaked gatecamps - now you can warp a cloak detector 100km off gate and see if there is anyone waiting. Or just use your dscan even.

For supers logging off - a cloak detector can now probe down any super that is cloaked in a safe spot waiting their timers out.

For bombers - now a fleet can have a few of cloak detectors that can give a heads up that there are bombers on grid.

Let's be honest. The ability to detect a cloaked individual effects EVERY mechanic that involves cloaking, because currently no such mechanic for detection exists. It's as simple as that. And that is not an exaggeration or fallacy.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#119 - 2014-03-24 22:21:01 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:
No.

The genesis for threads like this comes from a bear being afk camped by some guy in a cloaked frigate or getting nuked by a cloaked gate camp...or having a bomber point your JF/Carrier on a cyno beacon and get dealt a death blow by Danilaw (although that Nyx is no longer among us). Occasionally a drive-by Titan DD is what generates this junk.

I get it. You want a counter to cloaking. The truth is that cloaking is the counter to camps and insta-locking silliness. Please for the love of god and all that is holy stop trying to counter a counter with a counter because you can't handle being countered by the counter.

Cloaking counters:
- Insta-lock camps (usually)
- blob mechanics
- AFK ratting carriers/tengus/whatever you're in
- AFK plexers in FW-space
- and many more

Do more research, please.

This is a sister thread to the other one linked in my signature, and is not in any way recommended without balance comparable to it's half of the idea.

FYI: I also play the covert side with equal interest, viewing it as the flipside of the PvE coin, so to speak.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#120 - 2014-03-24 22:30:39 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
For supers - presently even if they log in with a scout they cannot tell if someone is on grid or not, only if someone is in system courtesy of local (I'm anti-local, but the point is still valid). Basically, this makes it so that now they can log on a cloaky-detector on grid and use it to see if there is a cloaked hic or something there waiting for them, which is currently not possible.

For gatecamps - a cloak detector allows people to find cloakies trying to run the blockade.

For scouting - a cloak detector allows you to know if someone is watching your POS.

For ganking - having a cloak detector alt would make it virtually impossible to sneak up on someone in a cloaky-proteus/tengu or recon ships. This would also be a detriment to blop-drops.

For cloaked gatecamps - now you can warp a cloak detector 100km off gate and see if there is anyone waiting. Or just use your dscan even.

For supers logging off - a cloak detector can now probe down any super that is cloaked in a safe spot waiting their timers out.

For bombers - now a fleet can have a few of cloak detectors that can give a heads up that there are bombers on grid.

Let's be honest. The ability to detect a cloaked individual effects EVERY mechanic that involves cloaking, because currently no such mechanic for detection exists. It's as simple as that. And that is not an exaggeration or fallacy.

So, you are pointing out that someone MIGHT go to the effort, of posting a guard at these locations, or patrolling them on a basis which is regular enough to prevent activity you described.

In a game where PvP players cannot be bothered to stand guard over PvE players, for obvious reasons.

And yet, you think seeing the name boldly listed in local lacks a comparable impact on the game?

Better, even, is the realization you have to have players scouting without definitive knowledge that they are even going to find ANYTHING, since the possible target they seek is not being listed in local.

SO, to recap, you have players proactively searching, with ships mounting the painter module described.
They have no certain knowledge that the cloaked pilot is present, so cannot know if this possible target is in the next system or even logged off.
This means, to avoid playing endless shell games, they have to post themselves on guard duty, by the vulnerable targets they seek to protect.

Exactly the way PvP players don't, in the current game.

Smile. Logic dictates that you are expecting a comparable play style to exist, to one that we have already demonstrated to be invalid due to lack of interest.