These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Cloak Hunting

Author
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#21 - 2013-05-11 03:23:58 UTC
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
#22 - 2013-05-11 03:28:45 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.



But my point still stands, all the cloaker would have to do is be cloaked barely 1au from anything and you literally could NEVER find them, which would make your proposal a giant waste of CCP's resources to create. Who would be stupid enough to cloak up on grid near a celestial when the ships in system are obviously tracking their "signature" to decloak them. Besides cloaking isn't broken no matter how many different ways null bears want to approach it. It's designed quite perfectly I'd say, it's LOCAL that's the issue.

The Operative: "There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "You have no idea how true that is".

Linkxsc162534
Apollo United Systems
#23 - 2013-05-11 03:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Linkxsc162534
DeLindsay wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.



But my point still stands, all the cloaker would have to do is be cloaked barely 1au from anything and you literally could NEVER find them, which would make your proposal a giant waste of CCP's resources to create. Who would be stupid enough to cloak up on grid near a celestial when the ships in system are obviously tracking their "signature" to decloak them. Besides cloaking isn't broken no matter how many different ways null bears want to approach it. It's designed quite perfectly I'd say, it's LOCAL that's the issue.


I think he was intending that the 100km search radius would be to search celestials to see if the cloaker was ongrid with them setting up for a run or scouting. Its not that uncommon to find a bomber lurking 80km off a gate in null cloaked watching people entering and leaving.
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#24 - 2013-05-11 04:06:46 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
I think he was intending that the 100km search radius would be to search celestials to see if the cloaker was ongrid with them setting up for a run or scouting. Its not that uncommon to find a bomber lurking 80km off a gate in null cloaked watching people entering and leaving.


Bingo.

If I am in my Buzzard, his point stands as I am usually pretty well away from anything scanning down a system. But, in my Manticore or Proteus, then I would be closer to something I can kill whether it be unsuspecting miners, explorers or mission runners. The guys way off grid aren't too much of a threat. Sure, they can drop Cynos to let fleets jump in, but if the cloaked ship is that far off grid, then the jumping fleet would be as well.

This is meant to be able to hunt down cloaked ships that are immediate, or almost immediate threats.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-05-11 08:51:58 UTC
I really like this idea and the OP approaches the sensitive topic of cloaking with patience and class. +5 Internets to you Rayzilla

This really addresses the topic of active cloaking and hunting rather than inactive cloaking (read AFK cloaking) and an 'I win' button. Frequently when I hunt targets in a bomber I'll be anywhere between 10-20 km away from the victim, sometimes for hours. The probes would force me to actually play the game rather than wait it out, and I like that it'll bring more challenges to PVP.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2013-05-11 10:41:07 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.




OH! So the entire point of your idea is to nerf the cloak+MWD trick, with a side effect of ruining scouting and bombers then?
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#27 - 2013-05-11 12:42:13 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.




OH! So the entire point of your idea is to nerf the cloak+MWD trick, with a side effect of ruining scouting and bombers then?


Nah, the entire point of the post was to **** you, specifically you, off and cause Eve to die.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2013-05-11 12:52:15 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.




OH! So the entire point of your idea is to nerf the cloak+MWD trick, with a side effect of ruining scouting and bombers then?


Nah, the entire point of the post was to **** you, specifically you, off and cause Eve to die.



Ahh, the old LOLOLOLOLOLOL I TROLL U defence of an awful idea. How original. Roll
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#29 - 2013-05-11 13:08:42 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The reasoning for the few hundred kilometer range of the scanners is that most areas of space in Eve do not exceed this size - asteroid belts, anomalies, signatures etc. Anything more than a few hundred kilometers would be both a waste and over powered. Also is the fact that I am sure that scanning for a cloaked ship would require a lot of power and a very focused scanning beam that would dissipate past that range.

There is also really no need to know if there is a cloaked ship even as close as 0.25 AU away as you really couldn't warp to it unless there was a nearby beacon. Knowing there is a cloaked ship significantly outside weapons range is just pointless. This is a module/system used to hunt cloaked ships, not just find them.




OH! So the entire point of your idea is to nerf the cloak+MWD trick, with a side effect of ruining scouting and bombers then?


Nah, the entire point of the post was to **** you, specifically you, off and cause Eve to die.



Ahh, the old LOLOLOLOLOLOL I TROLL U defence of an awful idea. How original. Roll



Says the troll who can't spell. Good one. You got me.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#30 - 2013-05-11 13:20:43 UTC
you didnt need to create another stupid thread about why cloaking is the way it is.
Use the search function.
Linkxsc162534
Apollo United Systems
#31 - 2013-05-11 13:25:48 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
you didnt need to create another stupid thread about why cloaking is the way it is.
Use the search function.



Yes but its kinda hard to hijack another thread when you want to post out you're version of an idea for people to discuss. Cause all people will see when they come looking it the idea of someone else on page 1. Noone is going to dig all the way to page 16 looking for another poster's full idea.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#32 - 2013-05-11 13:34:46 UTC
has this thread been added to the list of threads

lol
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#33 - 2013-05-11 13:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
you didnt need to create another stupid thread about why cloaking is the way it is.
Use the search function.



Yes but its kinda hard to hijack another thread when you want to post out you're version of an idea for people to discuss. Cause all people will see when they come looking it the idea of someone else on page 1. Noone is going to dig all the way to page 16 looking for another poster's full idea.

your idea is irrelevant, you would find the answer to your question about why cloaks cant be hunted in these threads.

bringing an idea how to change something before clearing the question if it should be changed at all is like saying B before A, this is what you did there...
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#34 - 2013-05-11 13:54:35 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
you didnt need to create another stupid thread about why cloaking is the way it is.
Use the search function.



Yes but its kinda hard to hijack another thread when you want to post out you're version of an idea for people to discuss. Cause all people will see when they come looking it the idea of someone else on page 1. Noone is going to dig all the way to page 16 looking for another poster's full idea.

your idea is irrelevant, you would find the answer to your question about why cloaks cant be hunted in these threads.



Eventually everything can be done. It's called innovation. How many things that we take for granted today were considered impossible within our lifetimes?

There is a way to decloak a ship - get close to it. Cloaks are great tools and very useful, so you can be assured that navies and arms contractors would constantly be looking for ways to locate cloaked ships and force a decloak.

If you think like a weapons designer, you take the knowledge that proximity causes the decloak and work from there. The logical step would be some sort of munitions that creates a big cloud of shrapnel that, if enough interact with the cloaked ship, causes a decloak. At it's simplest, this would have ships basically carpet-bombing an area of space with these munitions. Kind of like throwing paint on the invisible man.

The next thought would be how to detect these ships. They are still affected by gravity, right? They still create a miniscule amount of their own gravity since they have mass. There you go. Tune sensors correctly and apply enough power and you have a sensor that can detect a cloaked ship, albeit inaccurately.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#35 - 2013-05-11 14:04:17 UTC
save you all the RP bull**** hurfblurf, cloaking isnt huntable for a good gameplay reason. get over it
Linkxsc162534
Apollo United Systems
#36 - 2013-05-11 14:06:21 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
you didnt need to create another stupid thread about why cloaking is the way it is.
Use the search function.



Yes but its kinda hard to hijack another thread when you want to post out you're version of an idea for people to discuss. Cause all people will see when they come looking it the idea of someone else on page 1. Noone is going to dig all the way to page 16 looking for another poster's full idea.

your idea is irrelevant, you would find the answer to your question about why cloaks cant be hunted in these threads.

bringing an idea how to change something before clearing the question if it should be changed at all is like saying B before A, this is what you did there...


I don't see a logical argument there. Because if you haven't noticed, **** gets changed for no reason rather often.

Just like the removal of deep space scanner probes, which theres another thread crying to have kept in because though because some people use them effectively often.
Gimme the B and A of that debate.


And all the local debates, Someday I'll see the A and B there, cause they all revolve around 1 argument.
I want local removed because nullbears run and hide when i come into system.
You know what will happen with that change, they'll be raping their Dscan buttons just like in WHs, and the second they see someone they don't know, they'll still run and hide. Its not like they'll see 1 ship and think HUR HUR, it only 1, we keep mining.
Actually they can keep mining since most mining is done in gravmetics that will need to be probed down (oh wait, they're nerfing that adn making ice be mined at onboard scanner hidden sites, how much longer will it be before you can use your onboard scanner to find regular gravemtrics).
And don't think you'll be able to hide from them in your cloaker either, cause that will just mean that there's gonna be 1 alt sitting of every gate in a bomber 23/7. Only way to get in remotely undetected would be logging off for a few days and hoping that they forgot that you're there (I don't think they will, unless you leave for a month).

You remove local, all you're gonna see is even LESS nullsec combat, and more nullbears moving back to highsec cause they don't want to deal with the trouble.
Honestly though, someday I'll see this run and hide, cause I never have. You've seen run and grab your PVP ships and meet up at some point, but no hiding.


And as to the whole cloaking debate. The A and B usually boil down to.
Nerf cloaks, I got killed by a bomber.
Buff cloaks, I don't wanna be seen in local, even though I was probably spotted jumping in on the gate anyways, and in the current state if I wanted to go after a miner or someone doing anoms, I'd have to probe out the gravmetric (which will cause them to run and hide) or decloak to use the onboard scanner (which if someones a competent ratter, they ALSO will have their Dscan running all the time, and they'll run and hide the sec they see the bomber appear)

I'm at least giving credibility to the OP's idea because in my book, having a specialized ship to try and hunt down cloakers who are ON GRID with you. You can read that as trying to get rid of that scouting bomber or buzzard that's sitting there by detecting him. Or by scaring him off by him seeing that hes getting searched for in a method only remotely more effective than your gang putting all your drones on a ceptor and having him fly around. But hey I've always loved evasion games, but theres very few games that you get to be the hunter.

The local debate, you don't want instant intel all the time in systems. Well you know what a counter to the cloaked ships sitting on every single gate in null, after local removal, and still giving that instant intel you're so afraid of, would be. Some kind of anti cloaking measure, cause everyone will be pissed about the greater lack of combat.

Whatever. screw it. I've got work to go and do.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#37 - 2013-05-11 14:09:28 UTC
this discussion has been done in dozens of threads. read them everything you say has been discussed there.
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#38 - 2013-05-11 14:10:37 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
save you all the RP bull**** hurfblurf, cloaking isnt huntable for a good gameplay reason. get over it



"Good gameplay reason" - really? That's all you got? Here I thought your smug posts indicated a sliver of intelligence and a strong reasoning capability.

Really, "Good gameplay reason" is just a way someone like you says that they like the mechanic, have gotten used to it, use it to great advantage and don't want to have to adapt to anything.

Not my first time around the block.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#39 - 2013-05-11 14:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
im not giving you more because all you need is reading older threads. enough is said there about every single aspect of your arguments, really. go
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#40 - 2013-05-11 14:23:33 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
im not giving you more because all you need is reading older threads. enough is said there about every single aspect of your arguments, really. go


Heh...weak.

@Link -

I have to agree with others about local. If you're cloaked, you would be observing radio silence, wouldn't you? You shouldn't show up in local if you are cloaked.

Yes, someone could sit on the gate and send out warning when you jump in and cloak immediately, but that requires active play. Since you decloak briefly to warp from the gate into your position and also decloak if you want to drop probes, you would show up in local briefly. Vigilant players would see you show up then disappear and should, if they're smart, know to be a little more vigilant.

I am completely against anything that benefits passive play over active play which is why this idea is about hunting cloaked ships and not introducing something that limits them so that the cloaked player has to be active while others don't. No timers, no cap drain, not simple button that decloaks everything within a certain radius.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.