These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#301 - 2012-01-02 23:16:20 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
No need to bring your fleet and take down the POS. Just go abuse the cloaking system.
AFK cloakers can bring down POSes?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#302 - 2012-01-02 23:16:23 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
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.


We don't recieve free intel that tells us when people are actually active when uncloaked why should you receve free intel about others that are cloaked? It's like your trying make a argument you deserve something easier while the cloakers deserve less.

At this point and I use that term in the sense for as long as these threads have sprang up you can deduce that at the end of the day one side has to have a 1up. Its either cloakers or non cloakers. And if you give it to the non cloakers then cloaking becomes obsolete. Hence we are where we're at. These threads are ignored and always will be.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2012-01-02 23:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Double post.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2012-01-03 00:20:59 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
We don't recieve free intel that tells us when people are actually active when uncloaked why should you receve free intel about others that are cloaked?

It's not "free intel" when it's something you have to actively work at getting. Just saying.

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
It's like your trying make a argument you deserve something easier while the cloakers deserve less.

Yeah, no. The only thing I've been vehemently against has been removing some or all ships from local because that would make life pretty miserable for people who aren't running around in fleets. Cloaking I don't really see a problem with, even though I'm thinking some sort of fuel consumption thingy could add a dimension to cloaking. The chances are definitively there that in practice it'd suck ass, but I'm in the process of working on making a strategy game so I get to play around with mechanics instead of just theorizing.

In fact, if you've read what I've been doing in this thread, what I've been doing is try to get him to see the other side, see how it affects them, and see if there might be something he might want to do with his idea to make it more palatable. Not that he wants to make any changes at all, though, he's married to it.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Feather Storm
Tindalosian Trading Consortium
#305 - 2012-01-03 00:45:43 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
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.


This will not work if this is implemented you could totally mess over any cloaked player afk or not gathering intel will be imposable in any reasonable fashion.

with a 30 min time scale all I will need is 6 pilots using these probes at 5 min intervals and no cloaked ship will ever accomplish any task in any system I do not want them in, and if the timer is longer you just need more pilots to spam the probes. Gathering intel requires you to stay on grid with your target to observe with 1 scan completing every 5 min no cloaked ship will ever be able to sit still long enough to gather useful intel. and you can forget scanning in any way, shape or form. using either probes (You have to have the map open and pay attention to how you position them. This reduces the attention you can give to local space) or with the D-scanner requires you to remain in one place for the duration of a scan and because of the way it works multiple scans are often needed preferably all done from essentially the same place.

And if I was going to be doing anything sensitive that I did not want observed I would spam these probes from multiple ships to make sure that the cloaked ship had no choice but to leave grid repeatedly to avoid this.

this is bad it would render an entire class of ship useless for the job it was intended to do.

Things change you adapt or you whine.

[u]Please note[/u]: Whining will alert the nearest predator resulting in death and the continuation of the EVE-olutionary process.
Endeavour Starfleet
#306 - 2012-01-03 02:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
More pilots affect nothing Edit: During the timer. It is based on the cloaker end not theirs. 6 pilots spamming scans will be as effective as one or a hundred. If you have changed grid before YOUR timer runs out it is not possible to remove your cloak.

Player leaves grid and returns to reset his grid timer. Which is for the player not anyone else. His grid timer determines WHEN these probes work.

The only thing 6 pilots could do is cover more space with smaller probes to remove a single scan cycle or so. Which only matters after player has been afk so long he starts to show up.

Timing is up to CCP and sisi testing but I was thinking 15-30 mins needed per warp off and back. Simple as hell if you made a bookmark at about 1000k or so out from your grid.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-01-03 08:56:30 UTC
You're not really getting what I'm trying to tell you, are you?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Endeavour Starfleet
#308 - 2012-01-18 10:50:30 UTC
As CCP is looking for new module ideas. I am bringing this back up to give them this idea for consideration.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#309 - 2012-01-18 12:14:43 UTC
if afk cloaking would be nerfed, instant local must go as well,
because afk cloaking is the only way currently to subvert local intel.

Its simple as that. Otherwise it would be too easy to avoid any danger.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2012-01-18 12:36:03 UTC
Lousy ganker spotted.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Silentkiller1980
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#311 - 2012-01-18 13:09:36 UTC
I guess there's lots of cloaky bomber pilots posting here! The point the OP is making is to try to make the AFK cloaker who just wants to shut down a system by warping to a safe spot cloaking up & going AFK in the knowledge that everyone is looking at local & sees a red in system & docks up. The psychological & physical risk is 100% on everyone else in that system & none on the cloaky guy.
A system like the OP says would at least make sure that any cloaky red in system is actively hunting/scouting & therefore moving rather than AFK & no threat, and is now a target.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#312 - 2012-01-18 13:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Silentkiller1980 wrote:
I guess there's lots of cloaky bomber pilots posting here! The point the OP is making is to try to make the AFK cloaker who just wants to shut down a system by warping to a safe spot cloaking up & going AFK in the knowledge that everyone is looking at local & sees a red in system & docks up. The psychological & physical risk is 100% on everyone else in that system & none on the cloaky guy.
A system like the OP says would at least make sure that any cloaky red in system is actively hunting/scouting & therefore moving rather than AFK & no threat, and is now a target.


if you know thats the only intention of that particular pilot, just go on doing your things as you know he is not dangerous.
AFK cloaking as itself is absolutely all right and even NEEDED with the current local system.

Robert Caldera wrote:
if afk cloaking would be nerfed, instant local must go as well,
because afk cloaking is the only way currently to subvert local intel.

Its simple as that. Otherwise it would be too easy to avoid any danger.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2012-01-18 13:21:47 UTC
Lousy ganker is still spotted.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#314 - 2012-01-18 13:37:16 UTC
a f*gg*t spotted.
get the f*ck out if you dont have any real argument.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2012-01-18 13:40:41 UTC
You're the one that wants to ruin nullsec, not me, because you can't get ganks.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#316 - 2012-01-18 13:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
can you understand my argument or not?
Do you have any counter argument or not?

If not -> GTFO.

afk cloaking is the result of instant local. if you "fix" the first without the other, you get an even more broken nullsec than it is now.
I dont want a too safe nullsec (it is already now) and yes, I want kills. you want absolute safety. There should be no absolute safety.

You can fly a 30 billion marauder in null with little risk till none because of always friendly locals. If you would do that in high sec, someone would come and gank you the day after he scanned your fit.
Nullsec is already too safe.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2012-01-18 13:49:03 UTC
There we have the "absolute safety" bullshit card again.

Do you really think I can undock in any ship, even a velator, go to sleep for 8+ hours and wake up to a ship and not a pod in a station?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#318 - 2012-01-18 13:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Lord Zim wrote:
There we have the "absolute safety" bullshit card again.

Do you really think I can undock in any ship, even a velator, go to sleep for 8+ hours and wake up to a ship and not a pod in a station?


with absolute safety I mean for people who are not asleep or cloaked of course, I assumed that was clear for everyone who is not totally retrded. However, in big parts of null exactly this would happen, you undock your velator, go sleep and find yourself on a nice undock spot at your station 8 hours later!!

An average grid is 400km wide or something, so you need approx. 15-18 minutes to leave grid after undock, after that you must be probed out for a kill - 20 minutes without a hostile in system is normal case in major parts of 0.0, some systems arent even seeing a hostile for days.
Nobody seriously probes out noob ships to kill.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2012-01-18 13:59:00 UTC
Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention.

Well, that's perfect safety, then. We don't ever have a lapse of concentration.

And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#320 - 2012-01-18 14:01:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Lord Zim wrote:
Oh, so it's safety if I'm paying attention.

yes, if paying attention = watching local then its too much safety for too little effort. Obvious.
This is why people afk cloak, to take you this kind of safety. Thats absolutely all right and viable.

Lord Zim wrote:
And I've tried this theory of undocking in a velator and just hanging around, multiple times. It's died every time.


you tried that in a wrong place.