These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#141 - 2014-08-25 13:51:26 UTC
The hunting module, with a spin: This one is still a mirror image for requirements based off the covops / regular cloak itself.
The OP module would be capable of fully hunting the cloaked ship, so would trivialize cloaking if local advertised a cloaked presence as freely as it does now.

Options: It would eventually isolate a grid with a hostile on it, but be unable to narrow down the location further.
(There is a cloaked ship there somewhere nearby, the value here is that you also know where it is NOT located)

This would tie up an account the same as the cloaked player does, in order to counter the cloaked player.

This version, owing to the inability to directly hunt a cloaked player closely enough to achieve a kill, could possibly be entered without other changes.
Anthar Thebess
#142 - 2014-08-25 14:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Why not just make some sov upgrade allowing to install on pos system wide de cloaking pulse.

Sov cost for this upgrade 10- 20b per month, or better 10x - 20x median price of a plex in previous month.
Cost of activation of this pulse : some planetary materials and 20min spin up timer and 20 min cold down.
Can be only onlined outside pos shields, will consume all CPU on caldari large tower , and on lining will take 4hours, so not so easy to unchanor and hide inside of the shields.

Situation solved - player will have the possibility to get rid of true afk cloackers while isk cost threshold will block the abuse of this system.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#143 - 2014-08-25 14:24:11 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Why not just make some sov upgrade allowing to install on pos system wide de cloaking pulse.

Sov cost for this upgrade 10- 20b per month, or better 10x - 20x median price of a plex in previous month.
Cost of activation of this pulse : some planetary materials and 20min spin up timer and 20 min cold down.
Can be only onlined outside pos shields, will consume all CPU on caldari large tower , and on lining will take 4hours, so not so easy to unchanor and hide inside of the shields.

Situation solved - player will have the possibility to get rid of true afk cloackers while isk cost threshold will block the abuse of this system.

The problem here, is that you aren't playing a game with another player in a cloaked ship.

You are cancelling the game instead.

By cancelling the game, in this manner, you are able to use whichever ships you like to attack with, on your terms and timetable.

Following which, your PvE activities can resume at levels associated with being safe.

This simply neuters cloaking, and shifts the balance in favor of sov null local residents.
I want counter efforts, if a full balanced resolution is not available.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#144 - 2014-08-25 15:26:15 UTC
I might of missed the answer to this but how does the fact I show up in local while under gate cloak work. Even when someone activates a cloaking device I would of still known they are in system and react accordingly (dock up and watch my own cloaked ships on the gates to see when they leave, also add them to watch list to make it so that if they log in system I will also know)

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#145 - 2014-08-25 15:43:36 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
I might of missed the answer to this but how does the fact I show up in local while under gate cloak work. Even when someone activates a cloaking device I would of still known they are in system and react accordingly (dock up and watch my own cloaked ships on the gates to see when they leave, also add them to watch list to make it so that if they log in system I will also know)


The context of your question is unclear, but I will try to respond.

The gate cloak is a separate mechanic from an onboard cloaking device. What affects one does not translate for that reason.

I would suggest the gate not broadcast any details of newly arrived ships until the gate-cloak effect is either cancelled or expires.

I think that players actively watching the gate flare should have a heads up that incoming traffic is arriving, but be unclear who it is the same way they are unclear where they can be found.

That being said, this thread is about potential means to counter or hunt cloaked ships, after the appropriate balance was agreed to exist allowing such hunting.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#146 - 2014-08-25 15:43:43 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
This is thread #319742 on "CCP please remove the scary AFK cloaky ship from my system because I can't mine" thread.

I will admit that the OP came up with a plan to remove said scary AFK cloaky ship so it's not the usual rant because the poster got killed...

I don't live in nullsec so none of this will affect me but AFK cloaking can be annoying... How about simply just have a timer after certain amount of time the player doesn't click any buttons or do anything the game logs off. Most MMO's do this just to reduce load on the server.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2014-08-25 15:49:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
wow, thread resurrected again? I still stand by my view that you should not be able to hunt an incative ship. A ship sitting still and running nothing should have no signature due to the cloak. when they run propulsion then just maybe some module could track them but this should require atr least two ships to get a fix on the position (one with active search, one with remote search assist module, a possible tech II destroyer role).

With this an organized group can get an idea if a ship is cloaked or active, and can try to hunt it. If it shows up inactive you will still never know if they are AFK or watching hull down in a belt or sig...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#148 - 2014-08-25 15:51:43 UTC
IIshira wrote:
This is thread #319742 on "CCP please remove the scary AFK cloaky ship from my system because I can't mine" thread.

I will admit that the OP came up with a plan to remove said scary AFK cloaky ship so it's not the usual rant because the poster got killed...

I represent the 'scary' cloaking guy, as well as the miner / PvE player here.

I do NOT want CCP to remove the cloaked ship.

I want the cloaked ship to have a good reason to visit hostile space, and hunt down targets for a straight up fight.
I want the mining / ratting / whatever player to want this encounter just as much, so the monotony of ISK farming has a nice combat interlude.

I feel games work best, especially MMOs, when we play together.
Not avoid each other because everyone fears an overwhelming force from the opponent.

I feel it is possible to arrange such encounters, the same way avoiding them has been arranged.
I think this is a good idea, because I do not think avoiding encounters in a game was ever truly intended.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#149 - 2014-08-25 15:56:10 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
wow, thread resurrected again? I still stand by my view that you should not be able to hunt an incative ship. A ship sitting still and running nothing should have no signature due to the cloak. when they run propulsion then just maybe some module could track them but this should require atr least two ships to get a fix on the position (one with active search, one with remote search assist module, a possible tech II destroyer role).

With this an organized group can get an idea if a ship is cloaked or active, and can try to hunt it. If it shows up inactive you will still never know if they are AFK or watching hull down in a belt or sig...

I don't want anyone hunting an inactive ship.

That is dull, as one side is quite obviously not even playing.
If someone goes AFK, knowing they are exposed to risk that way, at least they should not be surprised to find themselves in their new med clone after.

I want real time resolution available, and have it balanced so both sides can believe they have a real chance of winning, and a good reason to play against another person.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2014-08-25 15:59:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
wow, thread resurrected again? I still stand by my view that you should not be able to hunt an incative ship. A ship sitting still and running nothing should have no signature due to the cloak. when they run propulsion then just maybe some module could track them but this should require atr least two ships to get a fix on the position (one with active search, one with remote search assist module, a possible tech II destroyer role).

With this an organized group can get an idea if a ship is cloaked or active, and can try to hunt it. If it shows up inactive you will still never know if they are AFK or watching hull down in a belt or sig...

I don't want anyone hunting an inactive ship.

That is dull, as one side is quite obviously not even playing.
If someone goes AFK, knowing they are exposed to risk that way, at least they should not be surprised to find themselves in their new med clone after.

I want real time resolution available, and have it balanced so both sides can believe they have a real chance of winning, and a good reason to play against another person.


That's my point, the AFK ship is no threat and can therefore safely also be under no threat. Hunting mods would give players the option to at least have a reasonable guess at someone being AFK whilst monitoring for activity that would suggest otherwise. I also like the idea that this would probably cause more paranoia about whether a player is truly AFK or just sat cold in that sig you reeeeeally want to run through...

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#151 - 2014-08-25 16:03:02 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
IIshira wrote:
This is thread #319742 on "CCP please remove the scary AFK cloaky ship from my system because I can't mine" thread.

I will admit that the OP came up with a plan to remove said scary AFK cloaky ship so it's not the usual rant because the poster got killed...

I represent the 'scary' cloaking guy, as well as the miner / PvE player here.

I do NOT want CCP to remove the cloaked ship.

I want the cloaked ship to have a good reason to visit hostile space, and hunt down targets for a straight up fight.
I want the mining / ratting / whatever player to want this encounter just as much, so the monotony of ISK farming has a nice combat interlude.

I feel games work best, especially MMOs, when we play together.
Not avoid each other because everyone fears an overwhelming force from the opponent.

I feel it is possible to arrange such encounters, the same way avoiding them has been arranged.
I think this is a good idea, because I do not think avoiding encounters in a game was ever truly intended.


The problem with your idea is you want to make it where cloaked ships can be scanned down. The whole point of a cloak is you can't see it or find it. Why not just fly a non cloaky ship that is more powerful if the cloak can't hide me?

How I've seen it done is they jump into system.... Wait... Wait.... Okay they let their guard down by now so I'm going to slowly sneak up to that guy and... It's hot drop o'clock!

Cloaky ships are meant to be sneaky rather than fight in a "fair" head on combat style... If you make them where they can be scanned down while cloaked you made them useless.

I'm not a fan of any form of AFK in Eve so I like the idea of a inactivity timer to prevent someone from cloaking up then going to his or her RL job while leaving Eve open.

If I misunderstood your OP please let me know... It's early here and I just woke up so...

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#152 - 2014-08-25 16:26:03 UTC
IIshira wrote:
The problem with your idea is you want to make it where cloaked ships can be scanned down. The whole point of a cloak is you can't see it or find it. Why not just fly a non cloaky ship that is more powerful if the cloak can't hide me?

How I've seen it done is they jump into system.... Wait... Wait.... Okay they let their guard down by now so I'm going to slowly sneak up to that guy and... It's hot drop o'clock!

Cloaky ships are meant to be sneaky rather than fight in a "fair" head on combat style... If you make them where they can be scanned down while cloaked you made them useless.

I'm not a fan of any form of AFK in Eve so I like the idea of a inactivity timer to prevent someone from cloaking up then going to his or her RL job while leaving Eve open.

If I misunderstood your OP please let me know... It's early here and I just woke up so...


This underlined part.

This OP exists specifically under the condition that it be balanced, by means not specified in this thread.
It is pointed out that the OP is not balanced on it's own, as currently someone can simply see the pilot's name in local, and know to scan them down.

The cloaked pilot is trading their invulnerability, in exchange for a chance that they may encounter players who are not making the effort needed to be warned about them.

Noone get's a free ride, and the cloaked pilot is definitely gambling.
On the defensive side, the PvE pilots are most likely betting their efforts to scan or otherwise detect hostile ships doesn't leave any gaps, assuming they are making the effort to protect themselves.

In both cases, whichever players make the best efforts, would have the advantage.

I feel this need for efforts on both sides is missing, in the context that a game is played and resolved using them.
Jacid
The Upside Down
#153 - 2014-08-25 18:15:28 UTC
It’s rather funny the people who feel that this thread has been overdone and redundant. I feel however that the issue hasn't been resolved and the omnipresent local channel in K-space takes away the critical component of surprise and the subtle of hunting that makes eve combat interesting.

The CCP solution to rather intentional or not to the local channel is hot drops. Players have come up with their own solution which is afk cloaking. However these two mechanics make pvp less about strategy and situational awareness and more about luck. The issues of force projection, local chat, and cloaking are interconnected and any solution needs to address all of these components.

There are a lot of different solutions out there and I don’t claim to know the right solution. What I do know however is that we should be testing some of these solutions either on SISI or even on Tranquility in limited regions. Then get player feedback to find out which system best works for eve as a whole.

CCP needs to look into resolving this broken mechanic eventually thought its not a problem that’s just going to go away. Until that time I intend to support cloaking/local/FP treads when I can and spend most of my eve time in wormhole space.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#154 - 2014-08-25 18:33:28 UTC
All i see is you killing the reason cloaked vessels exist in the first place.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#155 - 2014-08-25 18:39:11 UTC
Jacid wrote:
It’s rather funny the people who feel that this thread has been overdone and redundant. I feel however that the issue hasn't been resolved and the omnipresent local channel in K-space takes away the critical component of surprise and the subtle of hunting that makes eve combat interesting.

The CCP solution to rather intentional or not to the local channel is hot drops. Players have come up with their own solution which is afk cloaking. However these two mechanics make pvp less about strategy and situational awareness and more about luck. The issues of force projection, local chat, and cloaking are interconnected and any solution needs to address all of these components.

There are a lot of different solutions out there and I don’t claim to know the right solution. What I do know however is that we should be testing some of these solutions either on SISI or even on Tranquility in limited regions. Then get player feedback to find out which system best works for eve as a whole.

CCP needs to look into resolving this broken mechanic eventually thought its not a problem that’s just going to go away. Until that time I intend to support cloaking/local/FP treads when I can and spend most of my eve time in wormhole space.

Actually, this thread acknowledges the many threads that exist about such changes, as many include local as well.

As such, rather than another drumbeat talking about how local needs to change, I am pointing at the other aspect which would want for changing alongside it.

This thread details how hunting a cloaked ship might work, once the balance for such ability existed inside the game.

Obviously this balance is not present currently, since one of the obstacles in many cases is the fact that some aspects of cloaking would need to change as well.
This handles that cloaking change side, specifically.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#156 - 2014-08-25 18:44:00 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
All i see is you killing the reason cloaked vessels exist in the first place.

Vague.

Cloaked vessels exist as a path for PvP, involving more subtlety than brute force.
Done right, it opens up many options for play, and these opportunities are capable of enriching the experience for everyone.

Done wrong, it either kills resolution with stalemates, or shifts balance so one side becomes an absolute success or failure whenever contested.

Cloaking does not exist for any single type of play, any more than spaceships exist for such a specific end.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#157 - 2014-08-25 20:36:48 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
IIshira wrote:
The problem with your idea is you want to make it where cloaked ships can be scanned down. The whole point of a cloak is you can't see it or find it. Why not just fly a non cloaky ship that is more powerful if the cloak can't hide me?

How I've seen it done is they jump into system.... Wait... Wait.... Okay they let their guard down by now so I'm going to slowly sneak up to that guy and... It's hot drop o'clock!

Cloaky ships are meant to be sneaky rather than fight in a "fair" head on combat style... If you make them where they can be scanned down while cloaked you made them useless.

I'm not a fan of any form of AFK in Eve so I like the idea of a inactivity timer to prevent someone from cloaking up then going to his or her RL job while leaving Eve open.

If I misunderstood your OP please let me know... It's early here and I just woke up so...


This underlined part.

This OP exists specifically under the condition that it be balanced, by means not specified in this thread.
It is pointed out that the OP is not balanced on it's own, as currently someone can simply see the pilot's name in local, and know to scan them down.

The cloaked pilot is trading their invulnerability, in exchange for a chance that they may encounter players who are not making the effort needed to be warned about them.

Noone get's a free ride, and the cloaked pilot is definitely gambling.
On the defensive side, the PvE pilots are most likely betting their efforts to scan or otherwise detect hostile ships doesn't leave any gaps, assuming they are making the effort to protect themselves.

In both cases, whichever players make the best efforts, would have the advantage.

I feel this need for efforts on both sides is missing, in the context that a game is played and resolved using them.


Okay you said I misunderstood your OP and even were cool enough to underline it but didn't explain what I misunderstood.

You want to make it where cloaky ships can be scanned down. The whole point of fitting a cloak is so I can remain hidden. I trade tank and other attributes for this to remain hidden.

Your proposal is to remove that so now I can be scanned down. Oh wait disregard because there is a "chance that they may encounter players who are not making the effort"... Isn't this true for non cloaky ships too??



Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#158 - 2014-08-25 21:12:07 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Okay you said I misunderstood your OP and even were cool enough to underline it but didn't explain what I misunderstood.

You want to make it where cloaky ships can be scanned down. The whole point of fitting a cloak is so I can remain hidden. I trade tank and other attributes for this to remain hidden.

Your proposal is to remove that so now I can be scanned down. Oh wait disregard because there is a "chance that they may encounter players who are not making the effort"... Isn't this true for non cloaky ships too??

Ok, allow me to try and clarify here.

Circumstance A:
If you are in non sovereign space, then you are like everyone else. You are either avoiding contact to a degree, or preparing a defense against it, on the chance you may need it.

If you have a cloak active, under my system, you are unlikely to be hunted without motivation. Even with the hunting module I described, when cloaked you are a less convenient target than the guy with the shield extenders.

Circumstance B:
If you are in hostile sov null space, the balance point would be that in exchange for additional possible risk, you would have little interest in any AFK activities because you would be able to interfere more actively with targets.
They don't know you are there at all, until one side or the other takes an action to expose you.

The idea in circumstance B, is that whoever makes the better effort, gets the better result. And it can be determined inside a more practical time-frame than is associated with typical AFK tactics.

What is the expected cost?
Circumstance A, nothing significant. Gate camps won't have more chances against those passing through with this, either.

For the Circumstance B players in sov null space:
The cloaked hostile: AFK play drops from the table, as PvE players interested in clearing threats are now capable of doing so against unmanned targets.

The PvE player: Not knowing if you are alone, as one moment after your last sensor check something could have entered. Only your own vigilance protects you, but you can also coordinate with others, and create a network far more secure as a group. Security is more than simply the sum of individual efforts, when properly organized.

What is the return on effort?
Circumstance A, cloaking often lacks significance, unless the hostile is known to the target. With friends and alts, this is often bypassed already, so no real change.

Circumstance B: While in some ways more challenging, the opportunity to catch targets at all in many cases has greatly improved odds.
The total impact associated with AFK cloaking does not vanish, but is transformed by more effort.
Rather than terrorize a single system for 24 hours, you could lock down 12 systems for 2 hours.
Jumping around each system, the defenders unclear which system you can be found in at any single moment, you could avoid all contact while having the locals in hysterics over your uncertain location.
Linkxsc162534
State War Academy
Caldari State
#159 - 2014-08-26 04:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Linkxsc162534
So a few rapid fire questions here.

So this sensor mode, can the scanning ship move during it?

Reason i ask is because of it can, the whole painting objective kinda goes out the window, when you could just drive over them and proximity decloak.
If you're locked into 1 spot for the duration if your scanning, then your painter module might work, or more realistically youd try to direct some allied ships to go find them. Also it kinda makes it more like a siege module, for your sensors.


Secondly, when you probe down a ship. How close to the ship will you land when warping to them. Landing straight on them seems a little overpowered. Yeah covops can fly in a line and partially avoid the prox detection, but lots of other ships looking to hide occasionally dont have the cloaked speed to do that.
If warping to grid landed you with say 30km of the target, then youd at least have to cycle again and spot them.


Reasons for this came to mind. In ww2 often when hunting sub, destroyers would stop to ping their sonars and get a better fix on the enemy, less water slapping against the hull interfering with the sensors.

If the detecting ship was locked stationary for 30 seconds to a minute (and perhaps making its own sig skyrocket, after all its blasting out signals to try and detect) and it was hunting an active player, that player would have the opportunity to decloak, lock them up, and possibly kill them, followed by more cloaking or running or whatever.





Also a couple side notes for people.

The reason why wh corps can "deal" with cloakies, is because they dont run the risk of the cloaky bringing a capital blob with them.

Also under the rule that while cloaked i dont show up in local, even if they see me pop up in local when i jump into system, i could always fake them out into thinking I left. Then I can go about the business of making harvesting some nullbear tears. If theyre really worried about it that much, they can come after me. Like it should be.

Although not being able to run a cyno on a ship with a covops cloak would probably need to happen. (This means no cloaked warping and cynos. Regular cloak ships though can pack cynos, since they cant land on you, scram you, and pop the cyno. Even a covops would be limited to popping out a mobile depot and removing the cloak to online a covert cyno)
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#160 - 2014-08-26 04:59:19 UTC
I only read the first page but i am a fan of the destroyer "Space Sonar" module, perhaps it could even go to a second specialized destroyer class ( sort of how most other ship classes except battlecruisers have multiple T2 variants ).

Also death to local chat if you dont talk in null sec would certainly make things that much more entertaining and break some of the stagnation off.

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet