These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Tracking Device Launcher!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Sinister
Interbellum
#41 - 2014-04-15 18:55:08 UTC
Now we need to decide what would be the optimal range on the tracking device launcher!

Options:

1. 10 km

2. 15 km

3. 20 km

I thought it should be close range caus eit needs to be risky to tag a ship, so must be withing point range, what you guys think?
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2014-04-15 20:03:38 UTC
The Sinister wrote:
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
No. It's far too OP. And totally unnecessary.

There is no counter once tagged by the covert ops which is what 10 seconds before it locks you fires and warps off. Introduce bombers to this (most bomber FCs fly covert ops frigs) and it would be OP. At least with probes you get a few seconds to move but this would just destroy combat probing completely.




Its not OP remember you need to target the ship and fire the tracking device. so you have to actually be in range and in the fight basically.

The counter to this is Kill the Tagger, or Repackage the ship or make a run for it.

Also when you probe down a ship what usually happens is that its either alligned, or it has warped already when you land on the signal. So this makes it a bit easier on the Porbing ships to keep track of the enemy.


What does this bring to the game?

I propose it brings nothing since you can easily locator agent people and use combat probes. The mechanics are clunky (repackage ship is impossible in null unless you have sov, ergo favors defenders). 5 seconds retargetting delay on a covert ops without rigging specially for it then you can get out and get the drop on anyone with a bubbler and bomb them to ****.

Prove to me that this is a good idea.
The Sinister
Interbellum
#43 - 2014-04-15 20:24:47 UTC

What does this bring to the game?

1. It gives the Covert Ops ship class a Role in PVP wich is currently lacking.

2. It interacts with the porbing cappability of the ship class, so that you dont have to probe again the same target over and over again.

3. It inroduces a counter against cloaking devices, if you manage to Tag them while they are vissible.

and SO FAR You are they only one that dosnt like the idea.
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2014-04-15 23:15:54 UTC
The Sinister wrote:

What does this bring to the game?

1. It gives the Covert Ops ship class a Role in PVP wich is currently lacking.

2. It interacts with the porbing cappability of the ship class, so that you dont have to probe again the same target over and over again.

3. It inroduces a counter against cloaking devices, if you manage to Tag them while they are vissible.

and SO FAR You are they only one that dosnt like the idea.


Covert ops are already good for combat scanning, as are recons, and are widely used in medium sized gangs +.

And combat probes become useless once something is tagged because you have a no effort scan. Strikes me as unfair for people operating on hit and run tactics because all that effort is wasted, not to mention cheapening down the role of being the prober and any skill involved there.

How does it counter cloaking devices? You clearly don't even understand the whole debate around cloaking. 1. A cloaky camper, they come out drop on you kill your ratting ship and dissapear. If you bait them they are stuck by the cyno so dead. The whole thing is they are camping you AFK and you don't know where they are. 2. Bombers. They bomb you and warp. A good bomber won't even be locked by you in time.
Your entire arguement of 'anti-cloak' is assuming that the cloaky is going to let themselves be tagged by you and doesn't make sense. A cloaky ship chooses when to engage and turn it's cloak off, it doesn't just sit around waiting to be 'tagged'.

I don't care if i'm alone in 'not liking the idea'. It's still stupid, you just don't know it yet.
The Sinister
Interbellum
#45 - 2014-04-16 12:48:14 UTC
Active PVP role in the battlefield!
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-04-16 13:27:51 UTC
The Sinister wrote:


and SO FAR You are they only one that dosnt like the idea.


To be fair I didn't like it either Big smile
The Sinister
Interbellum
#47 - 2014-04-16 13:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: The Sinister
Cool thats 2 who dosnt like it!

Now let there be a rain of TROLLS upon this idea!

Sinister puts on a TinFoil Hat....
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2014-04-16 13:48:20 UTC
The Sinister wrote:
rain of TOLLS upon this idea!



Anyone passing this post must pay a TOLL of 1 million dollars......i mean isk!!!!!!!

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
The Sinister
Interbellum
#49 - 2014-04-16 13:50:12 UTC
Silvetica Dian wrote:
The Sinister wrote:
rain of TOLLS upon this idea!



Anyone passing this post must pay a TOLL of 1 million dollars......i mean isk!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHA let me fix that....
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-04-16 14:09:46 UTC
The Sinister wrote:
Active PVP role in the battlefield!


They were not meant to be combat ship so being rarely or even never used in an active combat role is working as intended. As I said earlier, being more tackles if a ship evaded you. The guy "wasting" his slots on warp core stabs have the counters of you "wasting" slots on more tackle mods or having more friends on grid to hold him.
Previous page123