These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2012-01-02 01:01:42 UTC
Oh look, the rules argument.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#282 - 2012-01-02 01:13:03 UTC
Hey, so you say you've defended your idea, and I'm not going to go through 15 pages to make sure, but have you assuaged the WH concerns with your idea?

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

RIP Vile Rat

Endeavour Starfleet
#283 - 2012-01-02 01:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Yes. In my plan there is time on grid where the cloak returns no signatures even if they were on grid. Edit: I mean right on top of the random point.

This can also be played with a bit. More time with no returns or less time with longer time per scan. It is adaptable enough that the variations can be hammered or on Sisi in my opinion.

Remember going offgrid via a warp resets the timer. So you just need to spend some time setting up some nice quickwarp bookmarks and keep lightly aligned if you need to do a quick reset.

Edit2: What that means is that an active pilot who does warping every once in a while will never be detected in a wormhole. Satisfying the needs of WH cloakers while still removing the will to go AFK.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2012-01-02 01:55:07 UTC
I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Endeavour Starfleet
#285 - 2012-01-02 02:02:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying.


The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-01-02 02:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying.


The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time.


Why should someone not be allowed to go afk in a game they pay to play each month? They can't kill you afk.

You can go afk in space without a cloak so why the hate for cloaking afk? We know, its a facetious question. It's because you don't like having to risk your ship, the EVE community knows that and hence that's why cloaking is as it is. Because without it, no one would ever die unless intent on doing so. The element of surprise wouldn't exist.

Your solution is an arbitrary penalty for a mechanic you don't care for. And its never-ever, going to be in the game.

And we also know why your posting on a alt. Its because your killboard record will show why you despise cloaking. But getting your poo pushed in doesn't mean that which enabled it to happen, is broken.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2012-01-02 08:26:55 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm pretty certain you'd find gathering fully reliable intel while warping on and off grid to be challenging and annoying.


The timing can be played with on Sisi. But you arent exactly having to hit it every few seconds. and the distance is small enough you are back in a short time.

I'd say this is pretty much irrelevant. Cloaked intel gatherers are already marginalized enough as it is with the metagame of using spies, you want people to use more advanced/demanding intel tactics than that. If you're going to have some sort of mechanic where the cloaked guy is made into being discoverable, then you have to add some sort of mechanic to allow the cloaked guy to perform long-term intel-gathering by being undiscoverable. Add an uncomfortable compromise, like making them weak as a kitten and utterly defenseless, and you'll make your suggestion more balanced.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Mag's
Azn Empire
#288 - 2012-01-02 11:00:48 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I highly doubt my plan would ruin the game.
That's because you have absolutely no idea about balance and game mechanics.


Again wrong. Otherwise I could have joined the countless others who say "Give em an AFK timer" instead of thinking of a balanced way to address the issue of going afk.

That is why this topic is getting so much attention. It is not a rage topic made after losing a ship but a topic made after observing the situation for quite some time and watching the problem get worse.

If this idea were implemented the AFK cloakers would have to log off and lose their free effect. Or risk being found and destroyed. They will have to join the many other active cloakers in getting their kill.

The thought of losing that daily free "SOLO KILL" sticker is what is driving a good chunk of opposition to this topic in my opinion. Same exact thing as the risk free hisec ganks of freighters before CCP buffed concord.
So you think the AFK timer wouldn't work because of balance? You've just proven my point quite nicely.

This topic gets attention, because you keep bumping from the grave. New people then post about how wrong you are and how unbalanced this approach is. The fact that you avoid awkward questions, speaks volumes about your argument and stance on the subject.

Caliph Muhammed may be blunt, but he has a good and valid point about you. But again you use your old fall back position of linking forum rules, instead of arguing your position. This with the other none arguments you have such as "SOLO KILL" and your constant insistence of linking this with a concord buff. Yea, good job.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Endeavour Starfleet
#289 - 2012-01-02 13:19:35 UTC
It is not a "fall back" I grew tired of the forum TOS breaking stuff so I posted the link to the TOS. Just in cause some have not had the chance to read it.

If accepting the forum rules makes my position on this issue weaker with you so be it. This isn't lowsec local or the middle of NPC nullsec. Members are expected to follow the rules here and CCP is enforcing them quite a bit more vigorously than the old forum.

And yes I am linking this with the CONCORD buff because back then too the pirates were claiming that CCP would never take action (And the TOS breaking stuff was even heavier on that one. Atleast now the reporting system works better) And the pirates also claimed that if CCP would stop their nearly free kills of large HP craft with said buff that they would quit the game in droves.

CCP instead fixed the issue. So this idea that one's pvp activity is sacred when it involves such a distant level of risk between attacker and victim doesn't seem to be the case.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2012-01-02 14:50:40 UTC
So you're not going to balance your suggestion for a solution, I take it.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Endeavour Starfleet
#291 - 2012-01-02 15:01:07 UTC
The being discoverable part is if he dosent move in the large amount of time it takes before he even registers as a signature. The idea is already balanced. If they don't want to warp off grid and back in 10-20 mins that is their problem. Their victims are already forced to be aligned, spam dscan etc...

Its balanced.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2012-01-02 17:49:08 UTC
Balanced when you're thinking about an aggressive cloaker, sure. Pure intel-gathering, not so much.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Endeavour Starfleet
#293 - 2012-01-02 20:56:57 UTC
I disagree. Intel is an active task to begin with so if you are watching something you will not want to go AFK for long anyway. And a simple logoff is needed if you do have to go AFK.

Unless the goal is effect on system which is what AFKing is often used for.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#294 - 2012-01-02 21:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
I think the issue with a simple logoff, is that it really is not that simple. When you log off you sort of reveal your presence, ship type, and potentially location to any potential targets/agressors in system. Given somebody is a actually paying close attention, that means you may log in to find they have bubbled up your warp in, provided they have enough bubbles, and had enough time to potentially locate your safe.

Maybe not a strong possibility, but they may even have time to scan you out with combat probes. Don't really recall if your cloak is maintained in log off, or if you decloak the second you close the client. Not sure I ever really payed attention to that bit.

Not a major concern, but obviously logging in sort of gives you away.

edit: Personally, I think your idea is a bit to OP when it comes to scanning down cloaked vessels, and sort of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

I already offered a measure of balancing that would potentially make this idea more feasible in the sense of it having a much reduced likelihood of actually pinning down a cloakers location without them sitting on a moon or station, or some other thing. i.e: Intel guys have to be more careful, but the afk safespot is not nearly so at risk.

I think it was my first post in this thread.

Also, I believe eliminating the ability to decloak without bumping a ship is important here. No tech should auto decloak unless it is directional fired on grid, and then with limitations to arc and rate of fire.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2012-01-02 22:18:08 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I disagree. Intel is an active task to begin with so if you are watching something you will not want to go AFK for long anyway. And a simple logoff is needed if you do have to go AFK.

Unless the goal is effect on system which is what AFKing is often used for.

Intel is an activity which may require looking at something for a long time. Having to warp back and forth to avoid getting popped means you might miss something important.

If you absolutely must do something with reducing the impact of AFK cloakers, while not ******* over pure intel gatherers, the important thing to do is to just make changes that alerts vigilant players that active and aggressive cloakers are about. If they can't do **** because they're in some sort of silent mode, and thus can't be found, then people can relax more.

I'm not saying my idea is the best one (or even a good one,I know Ingvar'll ***** about it), but it's a moderation and a counter to your counter which you're completely missing. You're broadsiding cloakers and just dealing with one "problem", without trying to moderate the residual effects/problems your "problemsolving" adds.

Kind of like those that just go "aww remove local, null is safer than hisec", which is just a dumb statement.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Krops Vont
#296 - 2012-01-02 23:02:20 UTC
Or they use up capacitor?
It would be a neat idea you can stay cloaked for a bit but the capital would only have so long as he is not cap stable. maybe a good 20min before ooh look on d-scan!

--==Services==--

Propaganda/Art/Media

Wormhole Finding & Selling

o/ Play for fun

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2012-01-02 23:06:09 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc..

If the player is asleep, why do you care? You're looking for some easy kills? Is that it?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2012-01-02 23:11:30 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc..

If the player is asleep, why do you care? You're looking for some easy kills? Is that it?

When you answer the question "how do you know?", is when you know the answer to the question "why do you care?".

Don't be dumb.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#299 - 2012-01-02 23:12:00 UTC
Lucien Visteen wrote:
What is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy.

It has a cloaking device.

BTW, I was at your house last night, hiding behind a bush. You didn't even know I was there.

BAN BUSHES!!
Cur
Back Door Burglars
#300 - 2012-01-02 23:13:59 UTC
Haxin Gam wrote:
ya know, with all of these anti cloaking devices people come up with i can't help but think.

what becomes of us poor capital pilots who happen to be using a cloak? we can't de-cloak and warp, more then likely we will be scanned down before we would manage to warp. it really brings up a point that no one seems to notice, more people use cloaks then the silly people in cov-ops looking for an easy kill. you need a better solution then just, "lets create the easiest to avoid method to de-cloak someone possible!"

you don't need an offensive method to deal with the cloak, you need a way to prevent or mitigate the potential damage they can cause rather then just remain posed/docked up.

long story short, as much as i hate the cloakers in my system, i would hate to have my carrier destroyed after escaping a failed engagement because all of a sudden my cloak doesn't work.



Have the probe system reversed in this case to favor catching small ships rather than big ones.

IE ships with the smallest sig radius are easier found, in comparison to say a cloaked Nyx that had jumped into system 5mins ago, and is cloaked at a safe waiting for his cap to regen before jumping again.

Or simply make Capitals and bigger immune/ineffected from said probes.

The problem with cloaking in its entirity is that currently people pay for alt accounts, train them Cyno5 + Covops, move them to a system of an enemy, that character remains there for the next month, logged in 23/7 seemingly afk, when its owner checks on it periodicly for targets to hotdrop onto.

The sheer fact that one aspect of the game, afk cloaking - i so important/worthwile for people to invest in multiple alt accounts and only train chars up to 10mil or under sp so they can perform that specific role and that is it.