These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9261 - 2017-04-20 18:27:16 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
It never was about the single AFK cloaker, it is always about what can be instantly dropped on your head.


IOW, your problem is that a large PvP force can overwhelm and defeat a smaller force. Working as intended, stop whining.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9262 - 2017-04-20 18:33:32 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.


Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here:

1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space.

2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking.

In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game.

The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9263 - 2017-04-20 18:47:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
And by the way your suggestion about a group of VNI does not really work against people like PL, they just bring enough to kill them all, all well and good to say that without actually trying it, but that is typical of you.


Ok, so now we're no longer talking about a single AFK cloaker shutting down your PvE indefinitely, we're talking about a significant fleet attacking with overwhelming numbers such that your attempt at defense has no hope of success. And yes, of course a major attack should be able to kill a modest PvE group.


It never was about the single AFK cloaker, it is always about what can be instantly dropped on your head.


Somebody is posting in the wrong thread. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#9264 - 2017-04-20 18:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
It never was about the single AFK cloaker, it is always about what can be instantly dropped on your head.


IOW, your problem is that a large PvP force can overwhelm and defeat a smaller force. Working as intended, stop whining.


My issue is purely with the AFK part allied to that intsant I win escalation, and I keep saying it even though morons like you keep projecting their own ignorance on me.

I will block your cretinous utterances again, you stupid moron.

At the moment I am ratting with one of Dommchincilla's alt in local, so up yours. And they tried to get me earlier and failed miserably... I also had the laugh of getting them to warp in on a POS, was really amusing. You stupid moron have no idea at all.

Actually this alt is interesting, looks like account sharing to me based on the pattern of activity.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9265 - 2017-04-20 19:09:16 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
[quote=Merin Ryskin]My issue is purely with the AFK part allied to that intsant I win escalation, and I keep saying it even though morons like you keep projecting their own ignorance on me


So, again, your problem is with the fact that cynos allow you to jump in an overwhelming force without having a warning in local, not cloaking.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9266 - 2017-04-20 19:49:34 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.


Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here:

1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space.

2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking.

In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game.

The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in.

Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9267 - 2017-04-20 19:54:36 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.


Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here:

1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space.

2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking.

In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game.

The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in.

Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting.



You need to first prove there is a need for the change you are advocating for.

Wormholer for life.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9268 - 2017-04-20 20:02:32 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship.

At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea.

I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy.

But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9269 - 2017-04-20 20:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.


Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here:

1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space.

2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking.

In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game.

The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in.

Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting.



You need to first prove there is a need for the change you are advocating for.

Change is subjective and never objective. Nothing in eve unless directly game breaking has to change. Proving something needs changed won't make sense in the least. You can't say why something has to change because of X or Y.

Change often comes in the form of popularity and if this thread was about changing peoples minds it would be in general discussion and not in the features and ideas. Its also shown that most people who are stubbornly holding on to there ideas even polarize more rather then start to get convinced to a common goal. 460 pages proves that, not one person have changed there stance on the subject.

In general it should be noted that it might have been more of a fault to the GMs to make sure this threads not about changing ideas of convincing people to vote for or against cloaking alterations. This is and always was a cloaking alteration discussion. Somehow its not been moderated and random garbage is posted in it. We shouldn't be talking about why cloaking should be changed in this thread rather then how, if it was, that's what general sub forum is about.


Edit: A small note to what Merin Ryskin is posting above. He/she is claiming that cloaking in w-space shouldn't be changed because AFK cloaking terror tactics isn't possible, witch is absolutely right. There is no need to terrorize residents using AFK-cloaking in w-space, its just that cloaking is not a null space only thing. It impacts players in w-space without the local dilemma that most null players suffer from. You still can use cloaks to camp systems, you can still be invisible for hours on end in a system where you would be killed in any other ship and you would for sure never go AFK in your ship unless it was cloaked. Merin fails to point any of this out and then claims that the idea I posted is irrelevant after conveniently having ignored half the points shown here.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9270 - 2017-04-20 20:24:48 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship.

At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea.

I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy.

But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker.


Already it is common to have one pilot sitting in a covops looking for new signatures. It's been like that for many years. They would just be doinga double duty by looking out for cloaked ships near the PVE-fleet. Adding deviation is not going to fix the issues with picketing wormholes themselves as you can just drop the probes right on the wormhole with minimum range and with most players having good scanning skills, the end result would be dead cloaky ship.

You give a way to find cloaked ships, we need to start talking about rebalancing all the ships again to reduce the drawbacks they have due to the ability to fit a covops-cloak.

Wormholer for life.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9271 - 2017-04-20 20:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Not even sure how change to cloaking is linked to the idea of logging out or why it was worth mentioning or given a solid reason to how the two subjects are linked.


Since you're too stupid to get it the first time, let's try again. There are two possible situations here:

1) A player in a wormhole cloaks and goes AFK. Their ship can not be detected and the inhabitants have no way of knowing the cloaked ship is there, but the cloaked ship is not doing anything besides sitting idle in empty space.

2) A player in a wormhole logs off. Their ship is removed from the system, but the inhabitants have no way of knowing that the player has left the game instead of just cloaking.

In both cases the situation is the same, no presence in local, no presence on d-scan. The only difference is that staying logged in means that you're vulnerable to a "cat walks across the keyboard and decloaks you" situation, so you might as well just log off if you aren't going to be actively playing the game.

The reason people AFK cloak outside of wormholes is not that there's an inherent benefit to being cloaked instead of logged out while you're AFK, it's so that having a new name pop up in local doesn't broadcast a giant "THE THREAT HAS COME BACK FROM BEING AFK EVERYONE DOCK UP" warning to all the potential targets. If there is no local to give away your return from being AFK then there is no need to stay logged in.

Yet again, what does it have to do with changing cloaks? Why do you even point this out? How is this relevant to cloak alterations? You don't seam to understand that your just stating random facts and then randomly claiming an idea is bad. Either you have to show us how AFK and cloaking in w-space alterations somehow have a link or stop posting.



You need to first prove there is a need for the change you are advocating for.

Change is subjective and never objective. Nothing in eve unless directly game breaking has to change. Proving something needs changed won't make sense in the least. You can't say why something has to change because of X or Y.

Change often comes in the form of popularity and if this thread was about changing peoples minds it would be in general discussion and not in the features and ideas. Its also shown that most people who are stubbornly holding on to there ideas even polarize more rather then start to get convinced to a common goal. 460 pages proves that, not one person have changed there stance on the subject.

In general it should be noted that it might have been more of a fault to the GMs to make sure this threads not about changing ideas of convincing people to vote for or against cloaking alterations. This is and always was a cloaking alteration discussion. Somehow its not been moderated and random garbage is posted in it. We shouldn't be talking about why cloaking should be changed in this thread rather then how, if it was, that's what general sub forum is about.



This thread is about AFK-cloaking, as the title suggests. The issue is, people don't all agree it is an issue at all

Wormholer for life.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9272 - 2017-04-20 20:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship.

At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea.

I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy.

But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker.


Already it is common to have one pilot sitting in a covops looking for new signatures. It's been like that for many years. They would just be doinga double duty by looking out for cloaked ships near the PVE-fleet. Adding deviation is not going to fix the issues with picketing wormholes themselves as you can just drop the probes right on the wormhole with minimum range and with most players having good scanning skills, the end result would be dead cloaky ship.

You give a way to find cloaked ships, we need to start talking about rebalancing all the ships again to reduce the drawbacks they have due to the ability to fit a covops-cloak.

I think you miss the point of minimum deviation. It would mean that you have a spherical space of 100km radians that would be the absolute minimum deviation, even with the best stats, modules, implants and skills. That number could even be bigger, 150km. But even a 100km is a huge area of space. Getting the fixed location of a ship within 2km in a spherical diameter of 200km is less then 8/1000 000 or 0,0008%. Its not gonna de-cloak people on the first try or ruin anyone's favorit ship. It would also only work in w-space.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9273 - 2017-04-20 21:27:31 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
And your suggestion: it would be terrible easy to camp entrances with a good prober and a bubble, leading to nearly impossible movement. Not to mention extremely easy to use as a early warning when you are running sites, leading to very low chances of actually catching anything as a cloaky ship.

At least something relevant came out of all of it. Thank you for replying to the actual idea.

I agree that it would create an easy method to instant probe ships on grid. Specially when you know if the target is on grid. Some bombing runs would be ruined, specially when multiple bombers would be probed at the same location. But that is why there would be a significant deviation to the end result. Just a random number here, +/- 100km and you will probably have a very very low chance to ever catch a target on the first try. Even then in a cov-ops ship that is squishy.

But regarding the early warning issue. That would be a fair and justified drawback to have 1 person in fleet sit in a cov-ops ship instead of help out with whatever else that pilot would be doing. It's not exactly like larger corps already have the numbers to fend of cloaked ships. This would more or less help smaller corps fending off the one off camper or surprise attacker and it wouldn't be a bad thing. Sacrificing a pilot for a task that would need to get done constantly would be prone to a lot of human error and still leave opportunity. Cloaking would just not have the extreme surprise attack capability it has right now, which is far to easy for the cloaker.


Already it is common to have one pilot sitting in a covops looking for new signatures. It's been like that for many years. They would just be doinga double duty by looking out for cloaked ships near the PVE-fleet. Adding deviation is not going to fix the issues with picketing wormholes themselves as you can just drop the probes right on the wormhole with minimum range and with most players having good scanning skills, the end result would be dead cloaky ship.

You give a way to find cloaked ships, we need to start talking about rebalancing all the ships again to reduce the drawbacks they have due to the ability to fit a covops-cloak.

I think you miss the point of minimum deviation. It would mean that you have a spherical space of 100km radians that would be the absolute minimum deviation, even with the best stats, modules, implants and skills. That number could even be bigger, 150km. But even a 100km is a huge area of space. Getting the fixed location of a ship within 2km in a spherical diameter of 200km is less then 8/1000 000 or 0,0008%. Its not gonna de-cloak people on the first try or ruin anyone's favorit ship. It would also only work in w-space.


So in order to balance this idea of yours, it's going to be pretty much useless to actually find anything. It's just a early-warning system?

Wormholer for life.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9274 - 2017-04-20 21:34:14 UTC
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9275 - 2017-04-20 21:54:36 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.


You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes.

Wormholer for life.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9276 - 2017-04-20 22:01:17 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
And by the way your suggestion about a group of VNI does not really work against people like PL, they just bring enough to kill them all, all well and good to say that without actually trying it, but that is typical of you.


Ok, so now we're no longer talking about a single AFK cloaker shutting down your PvE indefinitely, we're talking about a significant fleet attacking with overwhelming numbers such that your attempt at defense has no hope of success. And yes, of course a major attack should be able to kill a modest PvE group.


It never was about the single AFK cloaker, it is always about what can be instantly dropped on your head.


By an AFK player? Okay then. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#9277 - 2017-04-20 22:33:52 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


While CCP lets this one sit they will stay a niche game with a small player base....


What an idiotic thing to write. Yeah, EVE is a niche game simply because of AFK cloaking.

Typical stupid Dracvaldiepooh.


Being referred to as an idiot by you is a compliment, as per normal you leave out the meat on that point for a jaunty little dig, how progressive of you loser...

And by the way your suggestion about a group of VNI does not really work against people like PL, they just bring enough to kill them all, all well and good to say that without actually trying it, but that is typical of you.


So basically this reply is proof that your "blocked" list in your sig is BS?

Thanks fam.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9278 - 2017-04-20 23:57:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.


You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes.

In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out.

Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp.

Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who camp cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#9279 - 2017-04-21 00:04:51 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.


You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes.

In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out.

Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp.

Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping.


It will be used and abused to make cloaks pretty much useless by being detected before you are in range to attack anything.

Any change you do to make things easier for small corps will be able to be abused by larger ones. Your idea is a nightmare to balance and would add another exception to how different mechanics work (which CCP hates)

Wormholer for life.
Xcom
Eclipse Strike Unit
Jump On Contact..
#9280 - 2017-04-21 00:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Xcom
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Xcom wrote:
Well yet again, it would need balance. But yet, mostly would be used to catch cloakers that leave there PCs for extended periods of time and scare tactics. Used with smart bombs and teamwork that small number would actually grow fast as well.


You still haven't shown why this is required. Cloaks are not an issue in wormholes.

In most part its a non issue for larger corporations or mid sized ones. Small and low activity mid sized corps in w-space have issues with cloaked ships that harass activity's. Its to kill some time, to not just wait till the attacker leaves or to drive them out.

Larger corporations won't have the issues when it comes to scouting, or even care to because of the instant support number. But when your numbers are few then every man counts. Sacrificing a pilot for scouting is a choice and not a luxury. Some early-warning isn't bad for those who put effort into it. In most cases you won't be able to just enter a new system and not go noticed trying to probe down people. D-scan will give you away. Mostly it will prevent camping tactics where some individuals will force themself into a system and just endlessly camp.

Its mostly a win win for most, all but pilots who cloak of course. But as shown, the % are very small and mostly an issue with extreme luck or bad piloting (mostly AFK pilots). There might even be instances where you can pop the cov-ops and warp before support lands on grid even so it's not a total drawback. It won't be used ritualistically to destroy cloaking in general. Just tweak it to prevent the very edge case of removing camping.


It will be used and abused to make cloaks pretty much useless by being detected before you are in range to attack anything.

Any change you do to make things easier for small corps will be able to be abused by larger ones. Your idea is a nightmare to balance and would add another exception to how different mechanics work (which CCP hates)

You will have to explain this a bit better. I don't follow how it would ruin the approaching cloaker. You would still need to probe the ships before the cloaker could engage the target, that is a dead giveaway on D-scan. Unless the cloaky had BMs on the spots in that system, witch is a very nitch case, it wouldn't ruin the surprise.

As for absolute surprise attacks where you get a complete jump on a target. Even a small group of vigilant pilots that did take all precautions possible using ingame tools. That in by my viewpoint isn't balanced.