These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Black Ops 2.0
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#41 - 2012-05-08 19:31:12 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Loius Woo wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Go away, cloakbubble baddies.


Same as the other thread that you graced with your comment.

Thank you for your insightful and succinct logical rebuttal to the idea. You have brought so much to the discussion that I am speechless.

Here, take my internets.



You're ********, there was a gigantic thread about this a month or so ago where this point was argued REPEATEDLY and at great length. People should use the search button before they repost THE SAME **** IDEAS in multiple threads on the same day.

That would either have been this thread, or one that came after it.
(Original post was on March 1st)

With the exception of those who did not read it, most comments were positive here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#42 - 2012-05-08 21:01:41 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
I understand the post, point, and details of the thread, the point I'm making is that this is a huge answer to a question no one is asking.

The problem lies in that BOs aren't worth the cost as it is, they have no real function outside of being glorified jump bridges.

Adding this giant new tactic and module and god knows what else doesn't FIX the ships, it simply gives them something else to do. You still won't see them in fleets, you still won't really see them utilised much, and you still won't see people training up for them.

Combining the two ideas you get this giant clusterfuck of a module that now cloaks anyship in its field in any system, and gives them complete removal of local.

Outside of the technical limitations on how one person is removed from a local channel, how does this make the Redeemer any better of a ship?

If you want to fix the ship, start with the ship. Don't add some new grandoise tactic that needs to be tested/designed/discussed/debated, ad naseum.

Covert ops cloak, ewar specific bonuses. Then you will see them used more. Look at the Bhaalgorn, That should be akin to what the Redeemer should be.

More importantly, CCP has already said something similar in terms of what is coming down the line in terms of ship balancing and class types (replacing tiers).

Also this, or the 3/1 post are NOT the first time this idea has been brought up.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-05-08 21:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
CCP has also said that NEW MODULES are coming down the pipe and asked for ideas for them.

What you suggest for the BO is good, CovOps cloak, EWAR bonus for more than just the Widow, etc are all good suggestions.

With the proper balancing, the cloak field could be a fairly minor change. Remember we are not talking about a POS shield size field able to hide a drake blob.

What I suggested would, with max skills, hide a handful of BS's. That is hardly game breaking. Especially if every ship under the cloak suffers all the negative effects of a regular cloak besides the fitting issues.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by removal of local. What that said before? I don't think this was talking about the issues of local at all.

As far as I understand it, if you had a group in this cloak field then local would still show like 6-7 guys in local. How is that different from a CovOps gang moving through.

Adding a new role for a BO ship that fits in with its current role, but in a new way is hardly a large change.

Your argument is largely hyperbole (the use of an exaggeration as a rhetorical device).
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-05-08 21:21:10 UTC
And the other one with the same idea that's also on the front page?

Whatever. Thanks to whoever necro'd a bad thread.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-05-08 21:25:51 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
And the other one with the same idea that's also on the front page?

Whatever. Thanks to whoever necro'd a bad thread.


Again, it wasn't necro'd. It was brought back up because someone posted a similar idea and they were pointed to this thread. Thats completely natural forum behavior. If it bothers you so bad, stop reading it.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#46 - 2012-05-08 21:51:32 UTC
I was about to go into "yet another cry for covops cloak" reply mode, but this idea actually sounds interesting. As long as all ships benefiting from that bubble would have the normal T2 cloak penalties like locking speed penalty, movement speed and 25 seconds timer after decloaking before being able to target.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#47 - 2012-05-08 22:05:11 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Stuff, some of which got italicized for response below.

The rest was too opinionated or just unrelated as to bother responding to

I understand the post, point, and details of the thread, the point I'm making is that this is a huge answer to a question no one is asking.
Almost humorous, definitely ironic, especially when you accept this board is for features and ideas.

The problem lies in that BOs aren't worth the cost as it is, they have no real function outside of being glorified jump bridges.
Well, the first step is admitting there is a problem, which begs the question: How do we correct this?
And here you were trying to point out there was no question!

Adding this giant new tactic and module and god knows what else doesn't FIX the ships, it simply gives them something else to do. You still won't see them in fleets, you still won't really see them utilised much, and you still won't see people training up for them.
This is called an opinion. You have no supporting facts, but you present this as if everyone would agree with your assumption.

I get it, you want a covert cloak on it.
Now, go ask yourself what good that would do, after you pointed out they needed value to justify people training for them, combined with the fact your cloak gives them nothing a CovOps or recon doesn't already have.

Here is some confusion, as removing from local is part of many other thread ideas, just not this one as part of the idea.

Combining the two ideas you get this giant clusterfuck of a module that now cloaks anyship in its field in any system, and gives them complete removal of local.

The comments on local were opinions on it, never a part of the idea itself, so you lumping them together as an example of fail design is reflecting more on your reading than anyone Else's ideas.

Covert ops cloak, ewar specific bonuses. Then you will see them used more. Look at the Bhaalgorn, That should be akin to what the Redeemer should be.
Then go start a thread on that, or find one and bring it back.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#48 - 2012-05-08 22:08:54 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:
I was about to go into "yet another cry for covops cloak" reply mode, but this idea actually sounds interesting. As long as all ships benefiting from that bubble would have the normal T2 cloak penalties like locking speed penalty, movement speed and 25 seconds timer after decloaking before being able to target.

They would have all of those penalties.

My idea varies from Loius Woo mostly in details.

His version allows fewer ships, but easier travel.

Mine allows for more ships, but is nearly immobile, since each ship has it's movement treated as if it was using the cloak directly. Yes, it could move, but it would need to go the same speed as whichever ship happened to be the slowest.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Previous page123