These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The 'Local' chat issue
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2014-04-10 17:46:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...


That is a reasonable position (despite the double post) and I am beginning to see your point of view.

How would you resolve this initial obstacle so that the discussion could move on to an improved local?

Would you advocate some kind of inactivity timer for a cloaked ship, or perhaps a cloak only working for a limited time before needing to "recharge"?


Neither. The only "improvement" local could withstand and remain balanced in the current game environment is to possibly not give all its current information unless a ship got closer... But that would be worse. If local displayed an empty contact that suddenly changed to pilot as the ship got closer it would be giving even more information than it does now, and the few prepared pilots willing to wait and see would have warning to flee.

The balance of local is independant from anything done to cloaks.

If I was to balance cloaks I would start with making them subject to probing, but at a high enough difficulty that only those dedicated to the task would be able to do it, with difficulty, depending on cloak quality. Cov-ops would need a max skilled pilot with implants and a bonused hull fit for scanning, while lesser cloaks would be more vunerable.

I would have all cloaks behave as cov-ops do now, to allow warping while cloaked, with difficulty to probe and cap draw as the primary differences.

I would finish by giving them a cap draw sufficient that they would require significant cap mods to be on all the time, severly compromising the ships combat effectiveness to maintain a persistant cloak, except on bonused hulls which already are balanced with cloaks in mind. Now that we have mobile depots this would allow stronger combat ships to penetrate space, refit and operate more conventionally.


I think we are probably thinking largely along the same lines.

Whether it's cap drain or a timer, what we are advocating is that a cloak makes you undetectable for a time, but if you abuse it you will get found (such as an AFK cloaked PVE denier).

I did consider the cap drain route as a possibility but there is a problem with it in that different hulls have very different cap reservoirs and recharge rates, which would mean that some hulls (e.g. HACs such as the sacrilege) might inadvertently become extremely effective covops HACs, which I think would be catastrophic for the game.

By the same reasoning, covops carriers might become the norm, which I imagine is an extreme example of the law of unintended consequences.

I like the idea of cloaked ships being scannable with sufficient effort. I actually like the idea even if it can be done by a newer player in a T1 ship, given sufficient time.

So let's for example say that a cloak reduces your effective signature radius (for the purposes of being scanned out) by (say) 90%, each scan probe pass on you by the same person reduces that bonus by (say) 10% while the ship being scanned remains on the same grid. [numbers depending on the actual modules in use and type of probes etc].

This way, a lone bomber could be scanned out by a T1 scanning frigate *eventually*, and a cloaked carrier would not see much benefit from being cloaked if it stayed in the same spot. I think this brings two benefits to the game:
1. A single player is no longer able to act as an area-denier weapon without any risk.
2. Users of a cloak must now actually play, or risk being found.

I am unconvinced that a ships with T1 cloak should remain cloaked while warping. But I strongly agree that a cloaked ship should be detectable somehow. When one considers the techniques for detecting dark bodies in space in use today, the apparent absence of something that other cues indicate should be there is actually a signal that there is something. After all. cloaks seem to allow EM to pass through (round) a ship, but do I imagine not erase the minuscule gravity generated by the ship's mass. Perhaps the EM shielding is not perfect either, since cloaked ships are detected within 2500m.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#162 - 2014-04-10 17:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Nikk Narrel wrote:
So, your argument implies balance does not currently exist, since your solution set would undeniably shift future events more in favor of PvE play over cloaked threats.

Since the only other threat to PvE play, in this context, is massive blobs taking the space itself, the effective risk to PvE play is diminished significantly. I know of no competent player unable to avoid the marching band fleets as they move in to attack, so they are not a threat to PvE directly.

With reduced threat and consequent risk, how do you expect PvE balancing to be affected?



PvE ceases completely when those fleets arrive. The Pilot wishing to engage in PvE has lost the moment he can no longer accomplish his goal. Explosions are not required to defeat a PvE pilot.

Doing so may well lead to the PvP being so earnestly sought. As I understand it the hunters dont feel like sticking around once the combat wings of the owning entity show up, in which case they may flee in turn, or fight as they choose.

This is how PvE is already balanced. It stops completely in the face of any opposition, as many of the ships required to perform even basic PvE functions are not combat capable. Threat arrives, PvE stops, PvP begins.

The difference is that with even barely huntable cloaks that PvP once again returns to the balanced state of Non-consensual for all. The cloaked pilot can now engage in cat and mouse games with his hunter by staying active and aware of probes and moving when he sees them, or he can withdraw.

As an added bonus, some PvE pilots will either reship to combat craft and join the fun, or knowing the cloak is being hunted my try and re-engage in their PvE....which would provide an opportunity to inflict further PvE losses on that pilot.

The biggest misconception here remains that PvE pilots somehow owe others the chance to shoot at them in a defenseless ship. They dont. Until barges, industrials, and freighters get a button that shuts off a combat ships armor and shields and they get to do severe damage with mining lasers they deserve their opportunity to flee.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#163 - 2014-04-10 18:08:37 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...


That is a reasonable position (despite the double post) and I am beginning to see your point of view.

How would you resolve this initial obstacle so that the discussion could move on to an improved local?

Would you advocate some kind of inactivity timer for a cloaked ship, or perhaps a cloak only working for a limited time before needing to "recharge"?


Neither. The only "improvement" local could withstand and remain balanced in the current game environment is to possibly not give all its current information unless a ship got closer... But that would be worse. If local displayed an empty contact that suddenly changed to pilot as the ship got closer it would be giving even more information than it does now, and the few prepared pilots willing to wait and see would have warning to flee.

The balance of local is independant from anything done to cloaks.

If I was to balance cloaks I would start with making them subject to probing, but at a high enough difficulty that only those dedicated to the task would be able to do it, with difficulty, depending on cloak quality. Cov-ops would need a max skilled pilot with implants and a bonused hull fit for scanning, while lesser cloaks would be more vunerable.

I would have all cloaks behave as cov-ops do now, to allow warping while cloaked, with difficulty to probe and cap draw as the primary differences.

I would finish by giving them a cap draw sufficient that they would require significant cap mods to be on all the time, severly compromising the ships combat effectiveness to maintain a persistant cloak, except on bonused hulls which already are balanced with cloaks in mind. Now that we have mobile depots this would allow stronger combat ships to penetrate space, refit and operate more conventionally.


I think we are probably thinking largely along the same lines.

Whether it's cap drain or a timer, what we are advocating is that a cloak makes you undetectable for a time, but if you abuse it you will get found (such as an AFK cloaked PVE denier).

I did consider the cap drain route as a possibility but there is a problem with it in that different hulls have very different cap reservoirs and recharge rates, which would mean that some hulls (e.g. HACs such as the sacrilege) might inadvertently become extremely effective covops HACs, which I think would be catastrophic for the game.

By the same reasoning, covops carriers might become the norm, which I imagine is an extreme example of the law of unintended consequences.

I like the idea of cloaked ships being scannable with sufficient effort. I actually like the idea even if it can be done by a newer player in a T1 ship, given sufficient time.

So let's for example say that a cloak reduces your effective signature radius (for the purposes of being scanned out) by (say) 90%, each scan probe pass on you by the same person reduces that bonus by (say) 10% while the ship being scanned remains on the same grid. [numbers depending on the actual modules in use and type of probes etc].

This way, a lone bomber could be scanned out by a T1 scanning frigate *eventually*, and a cloaked carrier would not see much benefit from being cloaked if it stayed in the same spot. I think this brings two benefits to the game:
1. A single player is no longer able to act as an area-denier weapon without any risk.
2. Users of a cloak must now actually play, or risk being found.

I am unconvinced that a ships with T1 cloak should remain cloaked while warping. But I strongly agree that a cloaked ship should be detectable somehow. When one considers the techniques for detecting dark bodies in space in use today, the apparent absence of something that other cues indicate should be there is actually a signal that there is something. After all. cloaks seem to allow EM to pass through (round) a ship, but do I imagine not erase the minuscule gravity generated by the ship's mass. Perhaps the EM shielding is not perfect either, since cloaked ships are detected within 2500m.



Some ships will be better than others at cloaking. Those designed for it would be extremely difficult to find, and out of the reach of T1 ships without probe bonuses, except possibly with the use of drugs or perhaps a limited range (and expensive) deployable, pos structure, etc... Basically, effort defeats effort, with ties going to finding the cloak but taking a long time-- enough that if the cloak user is paying attention and sees the probe on his overview he will be able to warp off before being engaged.

The balancing of this would have to be comprehensive-- but meaningful trades should exist. Amarr ships have a higher cap recharge, so would be better at extended cloaking, with the trade of being more vunerable due to design to cap warfare. Regardless, some ships work better for some things than others, even within a class and thats a good thing.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#164 - 2014-04-10 18:15:39 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Whether it's cap drain or a timer, what we are advocating is that a cloak makes you undetectable for a time, but if you abuse it you will get found (such as an AFK cloaked PVE denier).

Just stop there, please.

It sounds to me like the premise of your statement is that PvE has a right to operate nearly risk free.

You have not worded it in this manner, obviously, but the effect is the same.
You are suggesting that PvE pilots are right to WANT only evasive tactics.
As such, you seem to be considering these as the only practical options, and are further paving the way to make them more effective, by breaking the stalemate conditions we currently see too often.

Keep this firmly in mind, we are discussing changes to the game.
We can change how cloaking works, which seems to be a base background mechanic with extremely far reaching consequences... or you can modify a couple of mining ships, perhaps make ratting ships more practical to omni tank and DPS PvP style.
I believe it is equally if not more game changing, to require limits to cloaking as being discussed, than it would be to add a few high slots and fitting details to the mining ships.

Heck, you could add in a separate line of combat-centric mining vessels, if it meant less confusion, as the high security space play is a different dynamic with different context for the existing ships to play in.

I would assert that the assumption that cloaking is the only thing broken, IS part of what is broken.
I would counter with: We have too much intel from local, and not enough from our own efforts.
Because local, as a side effect, is also prompting us when to act, we have traded out our ability to learn more from our own efforts.

Why is that? Because it is not balanced to be told when to look for something automatically.
Being notified automatically of a presence is incredibly powerful. it is comparable to being told when to duck or hide in a moba, before someone can shoot at you.

The changes now being suggested place a greater burden on stealth using players, while reducing the burden on PvE players in sov null. I see no other way of describing them in the current context.

They are inherently balance shifting, and the consequences down the road are bad for PvE, as well as pigeon holing stealth play severely.


As to Mike's comment:

Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE ceases completely when those fleets arrive. The Pilot wishing to engage in PvE has lost the moment he can no longer accomplish his goal. Explosions are not required to defeat a PvE pilot.

Doing so may well lead to the PvP being so earnestly sought. As I understand it the hunters dont feel like sticking around once the combat wings of the owning entity show up, in which case they may flee in turn, or fight as they choose.

This is how PvE is already balanced. It stops completely in the face of any opposition, as many of the ships required to perform even basic PvE functions are not combat capable. Threat arrives, PvE stops, PvP begins.


PvP ships are understood to outperform both Stealth as well as PvE ships in combat.
You cannot condone PvE ships being evasive on one hand, while suggesting stealth craft would employ different logic when equally threatened.

As already suggested, I believe the answer is for stealth and PvE to be able to fight each other without this pointless evasion stalemate constantly taking place.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#165 - 2014-04-10 18:34:43 UTC
It has been proven time and time again that cloaked ships and/or no local do NOT prevent PVE. If it did, wormhole space would be full of poor people. I can assure you this is not the case.

No trolling please
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2014-04-10 19:08:31 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

PvE ceases completely when those fleets arrive. The Pilot wishing to engage in PvE has lost the moment he can no longer accomplish his goal. Explosions are not required to defeat a PvE pilot.


This for the win. PvE ships are a means to an end. Even if the hunters destroy them, from the PvE'ers point of view it is just the cost of doing business. You defeat PvE'ers by stopping them from doing their business, and showing up and making them dock, either to hide or reship for PvP, stops their business.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#167 - 2014-04-10 19:16:04 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Whether it's cap drain or a timer, what we are advocating is that a cloak makes you undetectable for a time, but if you abuse it you will get found (such as an AFK cloaked PVE denier).

Just stop there, please.

It sounds to me like the premise of your statement is that PvE has a right to operate nearly risk free.

You have not worded it in this manner, obviously, but the effect is the same.
You are suggesting that PvE pilots are right to WANT only evasive tactics.
As such, you seem to be considering these as the only practical options, and are further paving the way to make them more effective, by breaking the stalemate conditions we currently see too often.

Keep this firmly in mind, we are discussing changes to the game.
We can change how cloaking works, which seems to be a base background mechanic with extremely far reaching consequences... or you can modify a couple of mining ships, perhaps make ratting ships more practical to omni tank and DPS PvP style.
I believe it is equally if not more game changing, to require limits to cloaking as being discussed, than it would be to add a few high slots and fitting details to the mining ships.

Heck, you could add in a separate line of combat-centric mining vessels, if it meant less confusion, as the high security space play is a different dynamic with different context for the existing ships to play in.

I would assert that the assumption that cloaking is the only thing broken, IS part of what is broken.
I would counter with: We have too much intel from local, and not enough from our own efforts.
Because local, as a side effect, is also prompting us when to act, we have traded out our ability to learn more from our own efforts.

Why is that? Because it is not balanced to be told when to look for something automatically.
Being notified automatically of a presence is incredibly powerful. it is comparable to being told when to duck or hide in a moba, before someone can shoot at you.

The changes now being suggested place a greater burden on stealth using players, while reducing the burden on PvE players in sov null. I see no other way of describing them in the current context.

They are inherently balance shifting, and the consequences down the road are bad for PvE, as well as pigeon holing stealth play severely.


As to Mike's comment:

Mike Voidstar wrote:
PvE ceases completely when those fleets arrive. The Pilot wishing to engage in PvE has lost the moment he can no longer accomplish his goal. Explosions are not required to defeat a PvE pilot.

Doing so may well lead to the PvP being so earnestly sought. As I understand it the hunters dont feel like sticking around once the combat wings of the owning entity show up, in which case they may flee in turn, or fight as they choose.

This is how PvE is already balanced. It stops completely in the face of any opposition, as many of the ships required to perform even basic PvE functions are not combat capable. Threat arrives, PvE stops, PvP begins.


PvP ships are understood to outperform both Stealth as well as PvE ships in combat.
You cannot condone PvE ships being evasive on one hand, while suggesting stealth craft would employ different logic when equally threatened.

As already suggested, I believe the answer is for stealth and PvE to be able to fight each other without this pointless evasion stalemate constantly taking place.



I am pointing out the hypocracy of thier position. They insist on others being available to shoot at while remaining perfectly safe themselves. I freely acknowledge that they will want to flee in the face of determined resistance as well, and see no problem with that.

Wormholes dont belong in this discussion. There are several core mechanical differences that make meaningful discussion impossible. The rate of income, reletive remoteness, inability to bring reinforcements in, and lack of local all tie in together. If local were to functionally change in k-space other core mechanics would have to change as well. The exact same changes might not be needed, there is more than one way to do anything, but altering any one fundamental aspect of the game like local would require extensive alterations in other areas as well.

PvE does not have a right to perfect safety in the presence of PvP ships. However, neither does the hunter have a right to inflict further losses to a PvE pilot. If the PvE pilot is innattentive or making bad decisions like staying to challenge a PvP ship, he deserves to explode. That has nothing to do with the balance of Local or Cloaks however.

Its a sandbox game. Options should be available. Evasion should be a usable and reliable defense. Cloaks and Local are two seperate things, and their balance in no way relies one upon the other.

The current situation is unbalanced, badly, in favor of cloaked ships. They impose a threat requiring multiple pilots actively playing to counter while remaining safer than inside POS shields indefinitely and completely passively. At least the guy watching local has to be present, awake, aware and paying attention.

I have no problem with more passive playstyles, but they should not be immune to the activity of active ones. If you got evaded, that pilot was active. Every moment you stay in space he wants to exploit, you win.

Thats not safety. Thats losing without an explosion.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#168 - 2014-04-10 19:21:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Nucleus
You say wormholes don't belong in this discussion, yet you are talking about fundamentally changing our way of life in wormhole space. I would argue (based on that alone) that it absolutely belongs in this discussion.

No trolling please
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#169 - 2014-04-10 19:30:33 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

PvE ceases completely when those fleets arrive. The Pilot wishing to engage in PvE has lost the moment he can no longer accomplish his goal. Explosions are not required to defeat a PvE pilot.


This for the win. PvE ships are a means to an end. Even if the hunters destroy them, from the PvE'ers point of view it is just the cost of doing business. You defeat PvE'ers by stopping them from doing their business, and showing up and making them dock, either to hide or reship for PvP, stops their business.

Yes, and in this context, I feel that validates the use of cloaking to bluff with while AFK, as clearly a player not present represents no actual threat.
Hence, the accurate description as a bluff.

If the mechanic were to switch from uncertainty to more direct confrontation, then this would change.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#170 - 2014-04-10 19:44:50 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The current situation is unbalanced, badly, in favor of cloaked ships. They impose a threat requiring multiple pilots actively playing to counter while remaining safer than inside POS shields indefinitely and completely passively. At least the guy watching local has to be present, awake, aware and paying attention.

I have no problem with more passive playstyles, but they should not be immune to the activity of active ones. If you got evaded, that pilot was active. Every moment you stay in space he wants to exploit, you win.

Thats not safety. Thats losing without an explosion.

I gotta poke holes in this part.

Cloaked ships, in the implied context here, only require multiple pilots actively playing IF they also have multiple pilots actively playing.

The assumption that PvE play should avoid risk, even knowing that the cloaked pilot in question is not evidenced to be active in the current time frame, goes too far.
Unless the player behind that unseen ship is pulling 23 hour sessions, where they neither sleep nor leave for any reason, that ship is harmless most of the time.

The idea that a PvE pilot should feel so outmatched, that even the unlikely idea a cloaked pilot may be present is enough to prevent them from playing, screams to me that these ships are poorly balanced for play without PC or NPC support.

The root of this problem won't go away, until it is actually dealt with.

The new skiff is being described in another thread, and may well be the first step in reclaiming PvE pride and authority over their own play options.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Woeful Animation
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#171 - 2014-04-10 20:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Woeful Animation
Its not the presence of cloaky campers that creates the risk, its the risk of power projection that is embodied in the cloaky camper when coupled with a cyno field generator. The cloaky camper embodies a threat which is far and away above the risk that the pilot face. Further because that risk can be instilled for lengthy periods of time with little or no effort, the cloaky camper doesn't have an effective counter and the risk of power projection.

Since this is the ideas section, I am more in favor of a module that allows a ship to be de-cloaked and prevents re-cloaking for a short period of time. CCP could call it a Graviton Burst Launcher/Graviton Burst Probe. A style of probe that when detonated within a set distance, (area of effect expanded by skills) that would de-cloak a ship. Give it a long time of flight, visible on D-Scan and the overview by default and make its detonation easily avoided by ships that are clearly being presently piloted.

Once the cloaky camper has been de-claoked however, that isn't the end, the ship must still be probed down or d-scanned, if possible, in order to provide a warp in.

Thus, the persistent cloaky AFK camper risks the loss of his ship, if he/she wants to park it and go to work or school or out to dinner or rat on their alt. They can still do it, but there is risk. The non-afk camper faces an easily avoided risk of detection. The PvE centric players have a means to find and hunt the camper and potentially find/destroy or otherwise learn if the ship is afk.

Accordingly an uninteresting method for playing the game is countered potentially and the more aggressive stance is provided, and the balance between local and cloaks need not be disturbed.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#172 - 2014-04-10 20:09:09 UTC
Woeful Animation wrote:
Its not the presence of cloaky campers that creates the risk, its the risk of power projection that is embodied in the cloaky camper when coupled with a cyno field generator.


That is the real issue. Cloaking by itself is fine.

Woeful Animation wrote:

Since this is the ideas section, I am more in favor of a module that allows a ship to be de-cloaked and prevents re-cloaking for a short period of time. CCP could call it a Graviton Burst Launcher/Graviton Burst Probe. A style of probe that when detonated within a set distance, (area of effect expanded by skills) that would de-cloak the a ship. Give it a long time of flight and make its detonation easily avoided by ships that are clearly being presently piloted.

Once the cloaky camper has been de-claoked however, that isn't the end, the ship must still be probed down or d-scanned if possible in order to provide a warp in.


You are talking about something that would affect ships off grid? That is completely silly.

No trolling please
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#173 - 2014-04-10 20:18:46 UTC
Ok, this might sound crazy, but here goes:

The stealthed ship can't hot drop effectively.
(Im gonna go with the spool up timer on this makes it a drop dead easy kill for the PvE ship if it even tries)
The PvE ship can fight every bit as well as a covert ship, (in the cruiser class range for an exhumer).

The covert ship lands on grid with the PvE ship, and the PvE ship kills it after a fight.
OR.... just maybe....
The covert ship lands on the grid with the PvE ship, and it wins after a fight.

What if... we could not predict which outcome would occur, and the likelihood of either was not really known?
What if.... pilot effort and preparation, and that means skills as well as skill points, were the deciding points here?

Wouldn't that be MORE interesting to see than simply run and hide till the uncertainty logs out of the system?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#174 - 2014-04-10 20:25:14 UTC
That level of uncertainty already exists in Eve. It's the main reason I choose to live there. All these changes I keep hearing about give no consideration to the fact that it would ruin one of best parts of Eve.

No trolling please
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#175 - 2014-04-10 20:29:24 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The current situation is unbalanced, badly, in favor of cloaked ships. They impose a threat requiring multiple pilots actively playing to counter while remaining safer than inside POS shields indefinitely and completely passively. At least the guy watching local has to be present, awake, aware and paying attention.

I have no problem with more passive playstyles, but they should not be immune to the activity of active ones. If you got evaded, that pilot was active. Every moment you stay in space he wants to exploit, you win.

Thats not safety. Thats losing without an explosion.

I gotta poke holes in this part.

Cloaked ships, in the implied context here, only require multiple pilots actively playing IF they also have multiple pilots actively playing.

The assumption that PvE play should avoid risk, even knowing that the cloaked pilot in question is not evidenced to be active in the current time frame, goes too far.
Unless the player behind that unseen ship is pulling 23 hour sessions, where they neither sleep nor leave for any reason, that ship is harmless most of the time.

The idea that a PvE pilot should feel so outmatched, that even the unlikely idea a cloaked pilot may be present is enough to prevent them from playing, screams to me that these ships are poorly balanced for play without PC or NPC support.

The root of this problem won't go away, until it is actually dealt with.

The new skiff is being described in another thread, and may well be the first step in reclaiming PvE pride and authority over their own play options.



Poke away. I enjoy reasoned debate.

EVE is about actions and consequences. That cloaky must be considered active at all times, or you are choosing to fly a defenseless ship in the face of armed aggressors. If you do, you deserve to lose not only the isk you are being denied, but your ship as well. It does not matter that he has done nothing you can see in the last 12 hours, he must be treated as active for the purposes of making your decision. Cyno means that you now need a fleet to counter that lone, possibly sleeping pilot.

The PvE ship isnt doing PvE unless his space is clear. Even with combat ships on grid he cannot be protected, he must evade to survive. PvP starts the moment 2 ships are in open space together. There are many ways to resolve this. That miner, hauler, etc... Isnt safe even in his alliance's space because betrayal and Awox happens.

One ship, engaging a single, minimal resource intensive module, must be treatevd as a fleet, by multiple active players on an ongoing basis while remaining perfectly safe, indefinitely and completely passively. Thats not a counter to anything, that is just plain broken. It flies in the face of the basic tenants of EVE-- there is no risk of non-consensual PVP, no need to even stay awake, much less aware or near a keyboard. There is no risk for the reward of enemy disruption, which is broken regardless of the timeframe, never mind days on end.
Woeful Animation
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#176 - 2014-04-10 20:33:35 UTC
Maybe reasonable minds can agree to disagree or maybe not.

I don't think that the mechanics of the game are broken with regards to piloted cloaky ships. The idea is not designed to be a shot to all ships on grid attempting to de-cloak. That's silly.

What isn't silly is a probe, IMO, with a reasonably small but still effective area of effect, lets say .25 AU for level 1, .5 AU for level 2 and so on to 4 AU at level 5. The pilot doing the hunting as to target a specific spot in space where the probe must land. From the landing spot at level 5, the probe projects and anti-cloaking (graviton) particles that gradually de-cloak the ship over a 30 to 60 second time period.

But once its decloaked doesn't mean you can warp to it. Then it becomes another ship in space which has to be located using ordinary means.

The point of this isn't to punish cloaky ships or use the probes in a way that prevents the way they are currently used. Its a means of finding that cloaky ship parked or attempting to hide under a cloak. It creates a game of cat and mouse.

For example, maybe the cloaky isn't a simple cyno ship but a cloaked T3 waiting for the hunter. Maybe the Cloaky Camper is willing to put in the time and effort to create a safe point so deep that it's nearly impossible to find short of dumb luck. The point is that a cloaked ship that is willing ready to actively use a cyno and create power projection isn't something that I want to change. That's what they are intended to do. Parking 700-1000 km off a planet and going to work for eight hours, secure in the knowledge that no one will find your ship isn't cool or exciting. It's crap game design.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#177 - 2014-04-10 20:46:32 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

One ship, engaging a single, minimal resource intensive module, must be treated as a fleet, by multiple active players on an ongoing basis while remaining perfectly safe, indefinitely and completely passively. That's not a counter to anything, that is just plain broken. It flies in the face of the basic tenants of EVE-- there is no risk of non-consensual PvP, no need to even stay awake, much less aware or near a keyboard. There is no risk for the reward of enemy disruption, which is broken regardless of the time-frame, never mind days on end.

I fully agree with this.

The point I am driving towards, is that despite the horribly broken nature of the situation, a type of balance exists.

I would like to partially automate intelligence gathering, so it is not entirely capable of replacing local in the flawless nature, but able to exceed it with the depth of intel.

I want the human element present, requiring just enough effort to introduce screwing up and bad planning, so players who actually make the intensive effort to try harder and play smarter have a significant advantage.
(That is specifically a significant advantage, not an "I WIN" button for either side)

I think PvE and cloaking can be really interesting together, as opposing game play styles, and I would truly enjoy working both sides of that dynamic.
For that, I feel, there can be no clear overall winner, each individual encounter must be resolved on it's own merits.

And for the love of holy Amarr's tattooed coin-purse, no more stalemate scenarios with AFK anything....

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#178 - 2014-04-10 20:46:33 UTC
The changes I would make to cloaks do nothing to prevent power projection with the cyno.

I do not like cynos on unhuntable cloaked ships, but I do not feel it would be OP if the ship was huntable.

Also, changes I would make do nothing to decloak a ship, only gets it on grid. Maybe you land close enough, maybe you warp in a bunch of fast ships and start searching. Maybe you warp in a bunch of battleships with extremely expensive high meta smartbombs and try to locate it that way, or try your luck with a stealthbomber neut bomb.

Point is you can know roughly where he is by actively probing him down and take some form of action. Even if you set an afk cloaked ship to moving you could figure out what direction he was going, send an inty out ahead and try to start sweeping in front of it by warping to the inty.

Hard, time consuming, irritating as 3 kinds of carnal pleasure in a sandpit... But possible.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#179 - 2014-04-10 20:57:15 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

One ship, engaging a single, minimal resource intensive module, must be treated as a fleet, by multiple active players on an ongoing basis while remaining perfectly safe, indefinitely and completely passively. That's not a counter to anything, that is just plain broken. It flies in the face of the basic tenants of EVE-- there is no risk of non-consensual PvP, no need to even stay awake, much less aware or near a keyboard. There is no risk for the reward of enemy disruption, which is broken regardless of the time-frame, never mind days on end.

I fully agree with this.

The point I am driving towards, is that despite the horribly broken nature of the situation, a type of balance exists.

I would like to partially automate intelligence gathering, so it is not entirely capable of replacing local in the flawless nature, but able to exceed it with the depth of intel.

I want the human element present, requiring just enough effort to introduce screwing up and bad planning, so players who actually make the intensive effort to try harder and play smarter have a significant advantage.
(That is specifically a significant advantage, not an "I WIN" button for either side)

I think PvE and cloaking can be really interesting together, as opposing game play styles, and I would truly enjoy working both sides of that dynamic.
For that, I feel, there can be no clear overall winner, each individual encounter must be resolved on it's own merits.

And for the love of holy Amarr's tattooed coin-purse, no more stalemate scenarios with AFK anything....


You run into problems as soon as you want to remove the ability to evade from the game on any level. Its the first, lowest skilled, most basic technique available. Watching your back for hostiles is as fundamental as it gets.

Local does not need a balance or counter. It is independantly self balanced, requiring active participation on the pilot with minimal effort as befits such a fundamental defense. Asking for the basic functionality that people use local for to cost extra fitting, isk, or repititious button pressing is like asking that sort of effort to make your ship move in an orbit.

Cloaks are the only thing broken enough to be used completely afk at no risk that isnt a dock. They are simply unreasonably broken so long as there is no way to influence them against their will in open space.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#180 - 2014-04-10 20:58:00 UTC
I would kill the reason for hot dropping, and just to be thorough, add the spool up timer so an attentive player could deal with upstarts trying to be cute.

I am enamored with the idea of an exhumer blasting the hard points off of something else.

Yeah, I am a miner with issues, possibly.

But I think it would be a LOT of fun.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...