These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A plan to give balance to cloaking (Images)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sebastion Heorod
Hellion Support Services
#221 - 2011-12-30 03:14:30 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:

It is called retaliation for forum posts. And there have been instances where a main poster was either threatened with or gained an AFK cloak in their system for supporting or being against an idea.


Which is only a problem if you are afk yourself and using an bot to mine for you. As far as actually knowing who is in support of your idea, all someone has to do is go back in the forums to see the months if not years of posts that you have made pushing an idea that will only benefit people that mine with bots. You have never giving a reason that the changes you are pushing are necessary beyond cloaked ships intimidating you. Eve is a PvP game, not a mining game, good luck getting a change that benefits miners at the expense of PvPers.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#222 - 2011-12-30 03:29:52 UTC
local, cloaking and all that stuff are balanced, you're all terrible posters

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Endeavour Starfleet
#223 - 2011-12-30 03:57:05 UTC
Andski wrote:
local, cloaking and all that stuff are balanced, you're all terrible posters


Balanced?

Cloak up go AFK as long as you like. Uncloak and hotdrop. Free kills!

And people wonder why Incursions are getting so popular...
Heisenburg Certainty
State War Academy
Caldari State
#224 - 2011-12-30 04:17:48 UTC
cloaks should slowly use a fuel, best way to end afk cloaking and bring some balance and players back to null sec pve

your idea however i don't support, you should be able to cloak and go grab a coffee, not go to work

cloak fuel is a better solution imo
Endeavour Starfleet
#225 - 2011-12-30 04:56:12 UTC
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:
cloaks should slowly use a fuel, best way to end afk cloaking and bring some balance and players back to null sec pve

your idea however i don't support, you should be able to cloak and go grab a coffee, not go to work

cloak fuel is a better solution imo


Read the idea again. You have plenty of time to grab a coffee. Yet not AFK cloak for hours or days on end.
Fabricio Terrant
Valhollr
#226 - 2011-12-30 10:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Fabricio Terrant
I ask myself why 0.0 should be safer than lowsec. In lowsec we run level 4 and 5 missions to our hearts content, even with neutrals in local. Now guess how many times I was ganked and how I was able to avoid that.

Wait, I better answear that for you.


1. Watch local. Check. (You obviously do that.)

2. Don't **** pants. Check.

3. Spam d-scan. Check.

4. Leave the eyes from the overview only to check dscan. Check.

5. STAY ALIGNED! Check.

6. Don't ever go afk, while not in station or POS or being cloaked. Check.

7. Hit warp as soon something other than green, blue or lilac hits the grid. Check. (You did configure the overview correctly, right?)

8. Don't whine about the need to stay alert at all times, that's why high-sec exists. Check. (As you already made clear your income is only marginally better, so make more ISK or feeling secure cannot be the reason you left high-sec.)

9. Kick my guys asses and ask them why nobody used the intel while the cloaking ship approached your system. Check. (You have an intel, right? Btw. the local should not be used to post intel, even my low-sec guys understand that.)

10. Kill cloaky ship at gates next time. Check. (Especially in 0.0, where you even have greater means to do that than in low-sec.
_____



You know where I was killed most of the time, while doing PVE? Ratting. In a bomber. In 0.0. At gates.
Also, guess which systems I do avoid while ratting nowadays?

So please tell me why in sov-zero, where you are SUPPOSED to defend your system from people threatening you (ACTUALLY back at the 'reactive stance') you rather think about game-breaking game mechanics instead of ways to acually defend your sovereignty? Did you even understand why 0.0 exists? If not, yet again, pack up your stuff and leave for highsec (and better fit a cloak while you are at it).


So to sum it up:

It's YOUR fault if you dock up just because there is a cloaky in your system.
It's YOUR shortfall the cloaky was able to enter your system in the first place. Gratz to the cloaky.

Period.
Endeavour Starfleet
#227 - 2011-12-30 10:35:57 UTC
Kill the cloaky ship? The sets him back what? An hour or two and tens of millions that he replaces within the hour on his main?

You mention all those steps someone in a HIGHLY expensive craft has to take. But an AFK cloaky can take a bath. Go to work. Catch a nap. And then come back to a free solo kill or free effect with the only risk of loss being a ship he can replace and have repositioned within the hour?

Wut? Question
Fabricio Terrant
Valhollr
#228 - 2011-12-30 10:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Fabricio Terrant
Did you even read my post?

Nobody is going to kill you, if you follow my steps. Not solo. Not for free.

About the effect. Welcome outa high-space, puppy.

Also who forces you to use a HIGHLY expensive ship?

...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2011-12-30 11:34:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Fabricio Terrant wrote:

So please tell me why in sov-zero, where you are SUPPOSED to defend your system from people threatening you (ACTUALLY back at the 'reactive stance') you rather think about game-breaking game mechanics instead of ways to acually defend your sovereignty?.
Actually that's what the anti-cloak standpoint is all about - people want to defend their sovereign space aggressively by probing down (or whatever) and eliminating hostiles (cloakers). Defending sov is entirely different from gameplay mechanics based around a 'reactive stance'. The only real issue is the effect of change on w-space playstyle; namely, that wormhole systems would become too defensible with a counter to cloaks.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#230 - 2011-12-30 11:47:27 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Andski wrote:
local, cloaking and all that stuff are balanced, you're all terrible posters


Balanced?

Cloak up go AFK as long as you like. Uncloak and hotdrop. Free kills!

And people wonder why Incursions are getting so popular...


What?

If I cloak up in some guy's prime jewing system, there is no reason why he can't simply run his anoms elsewhere. The idea that AFK cloaking is a way of shutting down a system is straight-out nonsense.

If you can't deal with metagaming, don't play EVE. Simple as that.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Fabricio Terrant
Valhollr
#231 - 2011-12-30 13:28:05 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Fabricio Terrant wrote:

So please tell me why in sov-zero, where you are SUPPOSED to defend your system from people threatening you (ACTUALLY back at the 'reactive stance') you rather think about game-breaking game mechanics instead of ways to acually defend your sovereignty?.
Actually that's what the anti-cloak standpoint is all about - people want to defend their sovereign space aggressively by probing down (or whatever) and eliminating hostiles (cloakers). Defending sov is entirely different from gameplay mechanics based around a 'reactive stance'. The only real issue is the effect of change on w-space playstyle; namely, that wormhole systems would become too defensible with a counter to cloaks.


Of course the sov-mechanics ensure that you actually hold the system. But if you do not defend your territory from minor threats, what good is it to have sov in the first place? And why would you even be allowed to be safe?

Guess what, you are not allowed. Because it is still 0.0 we are talking about!

So instead of breaking the game, do something about the cloakers in your sov, the way sov-holders have already done multiple times with me and quit whining about having to leave your anoms for a few minutes to catch him at the gate.

Again, if you follow my steps, you do not even have to leave your anoms. Your problem, if you use carriers with officer mods and are too scared to stay in your anom. Because if the cloaker effects you in that way, you don't deserve elsewise.

A sidenote to CCP: Thanks for creating a game where you never feel save. Please always stick to your motto!
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#232 - 2011-12-30 14:02:43 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Fabricio Terrant wrote:

So please tell me why in sov-zero, where you are SUPPOSED to defend your system from people threatening you (ACTUALLY back at the 'reactive stance') you rather think about game-breaking game mechanics instead of ways to acually defend your sovereignty?.
Actually that's what the anti-cloak standpoint is all about - people want to defend their sovereign space aggressively by probing down (or whatever) and eliminating hostiles (cloakers). Defending sov is entirely different from gameplay mechanics based around a 'reactive stance'. The only real issue is the effect of change on w-space playstyle; namely, that wormhole systems would become too defensible with a counter to cloaks.


This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, thank you for stating it more clearly. Anything that allow cloaked vessels to be scanned down would turn wormholes into safer space than even high sec.

Man, talk about killing one area of the game that CCP really did a great job on.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Jask Avan
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2011-12-30 17:12:04 UTC
This thread makes me want to train up some cloaking skills and go sit cloaked in some system in null. Didn't know there were so many tears.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#234 - 2011-12-30 19:11:15 UTC
here's the silver bullet ~fix~ to cloaking

make them consume LO3

problem solved!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#235 - 2011-12-30 19:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
of course that would require such a massive redesign of all covops cloaking ships that it'd be dumb

i propose a better solution, deal with it, there is no problem with cloaking outside of what you make up (because it's a metagaming tactic, and metagaming tactics have no place in eve online, a game about ponies and rainbows)

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#236 - 2011-12-30 19:29:37 UTC
People AFK cloak in highsec all the time too. What I do when that happens is go to another place and kill some of their corpmates. It's pretty effective in my experience. Maybe you nullsec folks should try that.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2011-12-31 07:40:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Fabricio Terran wrote:

Of course the sov-mechanics ensure that you actually hold the system. But if you do not defend your territory from minor threats, what good is it to have sov in the first place? And why would you even be allowed to be safe?

Guess what, you are not allowed. Because it is still 0.0 we are talking about!!

Indeed we are. I'm a strong believer that nobody should be allowed safety while undocked. Too bad you can't say the same.

Also, you losing bombers 'ratting on gates in nullsec' in a frigate says more about you then the validity of the game mechanics.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#238 - 2011-12-31 08:14:36 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Zim is right when he says that cloaky intel isn't a very critical factor in major fleet ops in nullsec. Alts used to infiltrate enemy alliances via renters or pets are used to gether intel when large alliances/coalitions move to attack another region. A cloaker might be able to see a fleet's composition, but a spy can tell you if they have backup or not. And do all that reconnaissance stuff without the need of a cloak.

I think Ingvar touched upon a very strong point in his proposal thread; that the issue with cloaks isn't so much that they are undetectable but that they are able to gather instant information on their enemies while being undetectable, forcing the other null occupants into a reactive position. W-Space was designed with reactive occupants in mind - the rewards are high enough that regular gankings are surviveable, the nature of the PVE makes PVP fits more viable while maintaining a high level of profit and finally, once a threat is detected a w-space system is far more defensible then a nullsec system: you can simply collapse the hole that the roamer came from. This 'reactive quality' of wspace is probably why cloaking there is being described as 'integral' to the wormhole experience.

Contrast this with sov k-space. The chief source of income, anomalies, are only marginally better then level 4 missions in highsec and are balanced around the player using a PVE-exclusive loadout and are not designed around group profitability. Fleet ops in anomalies using PVP fits in sov null would generate so little that it would simply be more profitable to simply have a 'pve alt' in highsec and a 'pvp main' in null. And many do this. The other problem with a 'reactive stance' in sov null is that, excluding the presence of local, the ganker otherwise has tremendous advantages compared to w-space. The first, cynos, fairly soundly defeat the feasibility of a 'pve defense fleet'. The second are the static, non-collapsing nature of stargates. Kill a would-be cloaky ganker in a w-space system, collapse the hole he came from, and you're in the clear for a while. Kill would-be cloaky ganker in sov null and you've bought only the amount of time it takes for him to reship and reinsert himself into the system.

tl;dr: the problem isn't so much cloaks or local so much as sov null does not support a 'reactive playstyle' the way w-space does.

Personally, I think a solution that satisfies both standpoints is one that leaves cloaks untouched but alters their ability to use local, d-scan and/or communicate with probes while doing so.


Best post I've read in a while.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2011-12-31 09:31:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Fabricio Terrant wrote:
Of course the sov-mechanics ensure that you actually hold the system. But if you do not defend your territory from minor threats, what good is it to have sov in the first place? And why would you even be allowed to be safe?

Guess what, you are not allowed. Because it is still 0.0 we are talking about!

And it isn't safe. If you don't remain vigilant all the time while undocked, you will lose a ship. vOv

And there's a difference between defending territory from any and all threats, and defending territory from all relevant threats. Roaming gangs which aren't able to just go AFK for a few hours to a few days are mostly dealt with, but there's something called "too much effort" when it comes to countering AFK cloakers. I certainly wouldn't be arsed to remain vigilent with guard fleets 8+ hours a day, every day, just because there's 1 cloaker in a system, I have much better things to do with my time than play eve online: a bad game, in the worst way imaginable.

Fabricio Terrant wrote:
So instead of breaking the game, do something about the cloakers in your sov, the way sov-holders have already done multiple times with me and quit whining about having to leave your anoms for a few minutes to catch him at the gate.

I don't know about everyone else, but I would find the fuel-burning cloak thingy hilarious, but I'm much more interested in keeping bad gankers from futzing about with local to help them pad their killboard for a while.

Fabricio Terrant wrote:
A sidenote to CCP: Thanks for creating a game where you never feel save. Please always stick to your motto!

Never safe, except for when you're in a safe spot, with a cloak.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
L Salander
All Web Investigations
#240 - 2011-12-31 12:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: L Salander
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post. This is not a topic to discuss the level of imbalance as CCP already knows this. I present this idea in good faith in CCP's ability to listen to the community for ideas on how to manage issues instead of extreme nerfs to certain game elements. So devs please feel free to point out any technical issues with my idea and I will be happy to think of ways to improve it to help make it possible to implement in the game. I welcome dev feedback as well so please post your thoughts devs!

Also I would like to note that the images below are mine made from screenshots from singularity and edited with the Gimp. I am not the best but I hope they convey the idea.


For those who are confused at this point. Lets take a random scenario in the game. A player jumps into the system, finds a safespot and cloaks. Under current game mechanics this player is now effectively invincible in place. Example in image below.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9176/afk1g.jpg

The cloak in theory is balanced. However, in practice this allows risk free away from keyboard activity while in a hostile system and this topic aims to make that a risky venture. And do little else.

The goal of this plan is to add risk to such activity through the use of a modified probe system that targets a random point generated every time the cloaked ship travels a certain distance. And to warn said ship in the same way submarines knew they were being hunted by the ping sounds. Of course in this situation it would be a message window or something similar to fit the feel of the game.

The reason a random point is used is three fold.

* It prevents quick uncloaks which can affect normal transport uses of the cloak.
* It allows the current cloaking backend to remain the same as position is not important other than warp reports.
* It prevents defenders from putting up a probe "umbrella" over operations to prevent active players from getting near while cloaked.


Other than the names and icons. The only major change when it comes to these probes is the extreme scan time as compared to combat or scan probes. I recommend 10x but that is something CCP could test on SiSi to find what is fair.

An Example scan image is below. I call it "Unstable Energy" just as a placeholder.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/364/afk2e.jpg

During this time the cloak pilot's client flashes a warning that his cloak is starting to become compromised. This would be the time to plan a quick warp and return to throw off the scan. If he ignores the warning or is AFK the result below is shown to the scanning pilot (Please forgive that I forgot to edit the name, 0.25AU not 4 and scan strength which ought to be 100)

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3995/afk3.jpg

A final warning is flashed to the cloak pilot. He has 30 seconds to warp or his cloak is temporarily disabled or its cycle stopped.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3681/afk4s.jpg

A random point is regenerated if he feels it is safe to recloak in place. However, If he is not paying attention his now uncloaked ship can be found by regular scanner probes and his location will be revealed. Often with the results below. (NOTE this screenshot was taken on Sisi and the attacking pilot is not affiliated with this idea nor was aware of my purpose in SiSi as far as I am aware. Just a random gank moment on Sisi made into screenshot for my idea)

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1233/afk5.jpg

As you can see. With this system only someone who is willing to ignore the warnings will be seriously affected by this change. So with this idea I believe this will solve most of the current balance issues with cloaking without having to resort to more direct changes to cloaking itself such as fuel bays or random decloaks. I hope you CCP will consider this idea for EVE.


words words words
Cloaking is not imbalanced. A cloaked ship cannot do anything to you. How many of these bloody threads are we going to have?

I bet OP would be the first to balk at the idea of "balancing" the ability to afk inside pos shields or docked in a station, which is every bit as "unbalanced" as cloaking is, using the logic of "but they cant be destroyed!!1 UNBALANCED" (while also ignoring their inability to do anything at all)