Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1445
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 09:46:00 -
[31] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Mag's wrote:Cloaks already have counters and are balanced. So why is this idea even required? Cause they are not balanced and no one can't find them if they would like to go out and find them. +1 to any idea that allows people to find cloaked ships. Your idea is insanely unbalanced. Well present a better solution to the problem then so that this talk about cloaks can end after years of complaining and we can start talking about something else. It's a topic that merges too often and there are always the two sides to it. And as much as you say my idea is out of balance I see that with the current mechanics the cloaks are even more out of balance. So present a solution to the problem mr CMS. I realy don't care what it is as long as something happens even if you get local removed and then add probes but something needs to be done.
What problem? There isn't a problem with cloaks, there is a problem with cowardice. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15094
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 10:15:00 -
[32] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Your idea is insanely unbalanced.
Well present a better solution to the problem then so that this talk about cloaks can end after years of complaining and we can start talking about something else. It's a topic that merges too often and there are always the two sides to it. And as much as you say my idea is out of balance I see that with the current mechanics the cloaks are even more out of balance. So present a solution to the problem mr CMS. I realy don't care what it is as long as something happens even if you get local removed and then add probes but something needs to be done. What problem? There isn't a problem with cloaks, there is a problem with cowardice. Indeed. Cowardice brought on by the fact their all seeing eye, 'easy mode' intel system isn't working as well for them. This effect can be gained without a cloak, but let's ignore that and focus on them instead.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Radhe Amatin
Caldari High Prime SpaceMonkey's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 11:36:00 -
[33] - Quote
-1 Bad idea...... i fly an fast tackle when we are doing gate camp and stuff...... u can catch clocky ships if u have a decent dictor pilot and some practice with decloaking with a fast tackle.....Its true its a 50 - 50 gamble you get some you miss some but all depends on the skill of the pilots . Adding a module that will declock the ship while u point at it will take out the fun in flying a fast ships for that purpose and will make things unbalanced and to simple otherwise boring. |
Ran Koraka
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 04:23:00 -
[34] - Quote
Welp.. was just an idea.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback.
Back to the drawing board. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
141
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 05:43:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Your idea is insanely unbalanced.
Well present a better solution to the problem then so that this talk about cloaks can end after years of complaining and we can start talking about something else. It's a topic that merges too often and there are always the two sides to it. And as much as you say my idea is out of balance I see that with the current mechanics the cloaks are even more out of balance. So present a solution to the problem mr CMS. I realy don't care what it is as long as something happens even if you get local removed and then add probes but something needs to be done. What problem? There isn't a problem with cloaks, there is a problem with cowardice. Indeed. Cowardice brought on by the fact their all seeing eye, 'easy mode' intel system isn't working as well for them. This effect can be gained without a cloak, but let's ignore that and focus on them instead.
See now this is realy realy simple and even you two should get it. If there are no problems in the game then no one complains yes? If a portion of the playerbase complains about something it means there is some kind of a problem.
This is something so simple that even you two should get it or you do get it but you choose to ignore it cause the current game mechanics suit your game style too well and you are affraid of chance like most people are.
And try to keep in mind that I'm just pointing out that there is a problem. I do not have any easy solutions for it cause I do not make games but it still doesn't remove the fact that something is wrong. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1452
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 07:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:
See now this is realy realy simple and even you two should get it. If there are no problems in the game then no one complains yes? If a portion of the playerbase complains about something it means there is some kind of a problem.
This is something so simple that even you two should get it or you do get it but you choose to ignore it cause the current game mechanics suit your game style too well and you are affraid of chance like most people are.
And try to keep in mind that I'm just pointing out that there is a problem. I do not have any easy solutions for it cause I do not make games but it still doesn't remove the fact that something is wrong.
A portion of the playerbase will complain about literally every single aspect of EVE. According to you, we should be able to buy SP, have a separate no PVP server, no more than a handful of ships should be able to lock one another, all systems should have a population cap of a few hundred, autopilot should take you to zero, CONCORD should be in lowsec and a whole pile of other awful ideas people with no clue how the game works bring up in here constantly.
Just because some people want something changed doesn't actually make it a problem. |
Atomic Virulent
Dark Matter Industrial
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 07:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
Simple fix. Give it a 30 min duration. At the beginning of every duration, beginning with the 2nd, give it a 5% chance of malfunctioning and decloacking. This would prevent infinite AFK cloaking while still giving an active cloaked pilot the ability to re-cloak if he hits that 5% chance. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1237
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 07:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
Atomic Virulent wrote:Simple fix. Give it a 30 min duration. At the beginning of every subsequent duration, beginning with the 2nd, give it a 5% chance of malfunctioning and decloaking. This would prevent infinite AFK cloaking while still giving an active cloaked pilot the ability to re-cloak if he hits that 5% chance. To do that you would have to remove the cloak reactivation delay completely, but that would never be abused Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1486
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 09:23:00 -
[39] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Mag's wrote:Cloaks already have counters and are balanced. So why is this idea even required? Cause they are not balanced and no one can't find them if they would like to go out and find them. +1 to any idea that allows people to find cloaked ships. Your idea is insanely unbalanced. Well present a better solution to the problem then so that this talk about cloaks can end after years of complaining and we can start talking about something else. It's a topic that merges too often and there are always the two sides to it. And as much as you say my idea is out of balance I see that with the current mechanics the cloaks are even more out of balance. So present a solution to the problem mr CMS. I realy don't care what it is as long as something happens even if you get local removed and then add probes but something needs to be done.
You are fundamentally wrong when you insist that there is a problem that needs fixing. Cloaked ships have balance tradeoffs baked into their hulls. There are numerous things people can do when a cloaked player is in their system. Etc.
Why do you insist there is a problem, ignoring the facts, balance, and options already in place in the game? Are you utterly blind or just belligerently insisting more "I WIN" buttons for yourself? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15100
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 10:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:
See now this is realy realy simple and even you two should get it. If there are no problems in the game then no one complains yes? If a portion of the playerbase complains about something it means there is some kind of a problem.
This is something so simple that even you two should get it or you do get it but you choose to ignore it cause the current game mechanics suit your game style too well and you are affraid of chance like most people are.
And try to keep in mind that I'm just pointing out that there is a problem. I do not have any easy solutions for it cause I do not make games but it still doesn't remove the fact that something is wrong.
People complaining doesn't equate to there being a problem. This subject has been talked over before and the solutions to their perceived problems have been posted. Therefore it has been shown that no problem exists.
So until any problem can be shown that has no current solution, then these threads are pointless. If you can show a problem, then let's hear it. But going over old ground and false facts, will not help your cause.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
|
Ran Koraka
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 10:29:00 -
[41] - Quote
Please..
My suggestion was to add some fun.. not a win button. There were many good questions, some just kinda unfairly dismissive. I'll throw out some ideas see if anything sticks.
"Cloaks already nerf your ship. Cov ops cloaked ships are inherently bad in comparison to other ships in their size class to balance the cov ops cloak. If you're on grid, cloaked, you are at risk."
Not true you have 250 cubic Km's to start as your grid (usually MORE). Currently you occupy 1% of that base 250 which we have a chance to find you in, I'm suggesting we increase that to 10%. The bigger the grid the less the hunters percentage chance.
Gate camps inherently stay close to the gate because that's where the action will be. If you sit 150 off gate which most sit 180 to 200 off gate anyway, the chances to actually find you with the proposed device are only slightly improved IF the scanning vessel is 200 away from the gate and LOOKING for you within 30 KM of WHERE they are looking. I cannot fathom too many FCs sending their cepters/dictors out that far at a camp on the chance that they MIGHT find a lone stealth bomber.
Oh whats that?, you AFK camp? well to bad bud.
All the same I'm sure CCP could create some crippling effects to go with the device like it inhibits MWD and Warping until the unit completes it cycle.
"And can we have a device for Cov-Ops ships that completely removes the effects from armour/shield mods, burners, drones, and MWDs please."
They're called weapons, webs, smartbombs and ECM bursts,and scrams. Thank you for proving the point (I'm certain again) that every other device in the game has a counter. To add to that capacitors can be neuted or nos'd. Sensors boosted and dampened etc etc etc..
"As long cloaked ships can't engage you cloaked there is really no need for an uncloaking device."
Wrong, cloaked vessels can be warp in points and call targets. I've been on both ends of this with sniping ships. its brutal and effective. This would still work with the suggested device. The cloaked ship just couldn't be sitting still, if someone actually had a chance to hunt the spotter.
Im answering this, but only because there's a fact that seemingly got missed. "I love how such threads always start with "i don't want to nerf cloak" before then proposing a big nerf to cloaking."
Nowhere in my original idea did I suggest a single change to the cloaking devices the ships which use them or the behaviors we are accustomed to. A nerf is to WEAKEN an existing object in the game via changes to its existing statistics.
I suggested a device that proposes a challenge to your existing doctrine. Does the idea that someone might find you weaken you because? why? you want to sit still at a gate all day? It forces a strategic/tactical change. You cant cloak and eat Pringles and risk a stuck hand?
The ONLY thing that the concept module does is make you visible. Not scannable, lockable, orbitable, or click button approachable. You have to be manually approached to be uncloaked same as always. The difference is there would be a weak outline of a ship to uses as a reference for that manual approach. When I envision this, it would show the cloaked vessel as a faint flickering hologram like image only to the scanner, The scanner would have to tell his buddies "I found him.. look to the planet X, now 10 degrees from that green star" etc.. Not an easy button.. by far. You think that's easy? I fly with a Euro Crew,and I do not speak Dutch.
This was to ADD to the game, not a win key, but a new component of game play. The only factor is the cloaker would not be able to sit invisible, and thereby invulnerable . He'd have to be more wary and MOVE a little when sitting at the gate,station, whatever when jumping in. Could you risk any longer sitting off the station 200, and go to work? Nope! no you couldn't because some bored 14 year old from Wisconsin might be bored enough to go snipe hunting and find you AFK... you come home from work to a pod in a station. Scary stuff man!
The Stealth bomber can already insta cloak and init the pulse warp and evade even bubbles after jumping in? Does the forum unanimously agree that's NOT dangerously close to an easy button?
The thing that strikes me here is it would make bombers fly in groups and force cov-ops ships to be a little more cautious not a WHOLE lot more, just a little.
There are plenty of inventive approved ways to de-cloak ships, Drone/can blobs, frigate blobs, smart bombing battleships at a gate. What I am asking, suggesting, is for a way to build into this existing niche, because we had to be inventive already and there is a necessity to improve on the aforementioned "technologies" of mass blobbing garbage around a regularly traveled point in space.
Last thing then I'm done .. If you didn't like it, I applaud your questions and concerns. I don't want an easy button any more than you, I would not change the existing landscape of play except to add something like this which adds to the interaction between players.
Thanks again.
PS : This is Features & Ideas Discussion, Not the complaint forum or ticketing system. I had an Idea, one many have had. I hoped to present something a little different. If that's an inconvenience my apologies. Like the TV you are welcome "change the station" and not read it. honest, no ones making you waste your time. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1489
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 10:54:00 -
[42] - Quote
How come your suggestions are all massive horrible nerfs to cloaks without any balance in the other direction
it's almost as if you simply want "I WIN" buttons |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 11:04:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ran Koraka wrote:This was to ADD to the game, not a win key, but a new component of game play. The only factor is the cloaker would not be able to sit invisible, and thereby invulnerable . He'd have to be more wary and MOVE a little when sitting at the gate,station, whatever when jumping in. Could you risk any longer sitting off the station 200, and go to work? Nope! no you couldn't because some bored 14 year old from Wisconsin might be bored enough to go snipe hunting and find you AFK... you come home from work to a pod in a station. Scary stuff man!
It still sounds like a "I Win" button for gate camps.
No, don't take me wrong. I don't have anything against gate camps. They are part of EVE. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 17:22:00 -
[44] - Quote
Push button, get bacon!!! Great idea to fix something which isn't broken!! |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 18:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:Mag's wrote:Cloaks already have counters and are balanced. So why is this idea even required? Cause they are not balanced and no one can't find them if they would like to go out and find them. +1 to any idea that allows people to find cloaked ships. Your idea is insanely unbalanced.
I personally prefer the idea of very limited range EMP probes (not usable in WH space, high sec, or (maybe or maybe not) low sec) that wap to the destination then have a short time delay (so active cloakers can see them on d-scan and gtfo) and then emit their EMP and explode in the process. So they are one time use and a new item for industry people to make, and to be effective you have to have a small gang using the EMP probes, combat probes, and dps.
I think that is as balanced as you can get. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2001
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:15:00 -
[46] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:I personally prefer the idea of very limited range EMP probes (not usable in WH space, high sec, or (maybe or maybe not) low sec) that wap to the destination then have a short time delay (so active cloakers can see them on d-scan and gtfo) and then emit their EMP and explode in the process. So they are one time use and a new item for industry people to make, and to be effective you have to have a small gang using the EMP probes, combat probes, and dps.
I think that is as balanced as you can get. Balanced how?
Balanced if you ignore the fact that they represent the only real threat to PvE or other risk averse assets in system?
Before you declare your idea to be balanced, you need to consider that cloaking is already balanced currently. Is it convenient when you want to mine / rat / run missions? Not necessarily, but that has no connection to balance.
So, let's look at your proposal again: You are creating an EMP blast probe, presumably to decloak ships too close to it. This idea, standing alone as you have it, is an obvious shift in balance towards favoring the PvE assets.
The same assets, (in case you were unaware), that can use local as a warning so they can hit warp and get safe every time. All they need to do is stay aligned, which is not difficult. That point being established, your idea is only useful to flush out the cloaked vessels, since you can remove all others at your leisure already, never having risked anything but dedicated PvP ships, and hardly that since it is typical to use overwhelming force.
Where is the balance?
When do the cloaked vessels get something in exchange for this newly found vulnerability? Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
DataRunner Touch
Phlut Design Systems
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 20:55:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ran Koraka wrote:Please..
"And can we have a device for Cov-Ops ships that completely removes the effects from armour/shield mods, burners, drones, and MWDs please."
They're called weapons, webs, smartbombs and ECM bursts,and scrams. Thank you for proving the point (I'm certain again) that every other device in the game has a counter. To add to that capacitors can be neuted or nos'd. Sensors boosted and dampened etc etc etc..
I guess built in counters don't count as counters anymore....
Isn't just about all cloak able ships rather nerfed when it comes to tanking and damage potential? Don't most stealth ships have a limited selection of targets that they can actually kill?
Now for my final question, why is it that when people get outsmarted by someone that they deem that objected in use is over powered.
If someone afk in your system, move systems, if he follows then you know he not afk. Set a trap for him. Get your own cloaker, perform some psychological warfare. Use your brain. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
510
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 21:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
DataRunner Touch wrote:If someone afk in your system, move systems, if he follows then you know he not afk. Set a trap for him. Get your own cloaker, perform some psychological warfare. Use your brain. You're so right. The problem is these people that consider cloaks overpowered don't want to use their brains. They don't want to come up with a solution in the game. They want CCP to create a solution for them even though many solutions already exist.
The best solution to no problem is nothing. |
Spaceman Jack
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 21:35:00 -
[49] - Quote
An anti-cloak bomb would be cool |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
512
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 04:39:00 -
[50] - Quote
Spaceman Jack wrote:An anti-cloak bomb would be cool
A module that would turn other people's ships into giant pink space elephants would be cool. That doesn't make it balanced, fair or sensible though. A bit like an anti-cloak bomb. |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
1170
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
For the OP BB sais "hi"
And NO |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2009
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 13:35:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:A module that would turn other people's ships into giant pink space elephants would be cool. That doesn't make it balanced, fair or sensible though. A bit like an anti-cloak bomb. Please create a thread for this, I want to +1 it!
It could be a new ORE class of freighter or something, having better bonuses in exchange for only being able to move ore hold items.... Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
I'll accept an anti-cloak weapon, as soon as I can target and fire while remaining cloaked. Let me appear on overview for 0.25 seconds each time my torpedoes fire, but then I automatically re-cloak once they've launched.
Does anyone posting in favor of this idea realize that cloaked ships can't do anything to you except watch you? |
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:24:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ran Koraka wrote:Nowhere in my original idea did I suggest a single change to the cloaking devices the ships which use them or the behaviors we are accustomed to. A nerf is to WEAKEN an existing object in the game via changes to its existing statistics.
That's just a very arbitrary definition that you made up yourself. Your idea aims to make cloaked pilots more vulnerable therefore it IS defacto a nerf to cloaking. That you don't want to consider it as such for your arguments sake is a blatant and intentional fallacy. |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 14:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Cloaks already have counters and are balanced. So why is this idea even required?
Because OP is terrible as decloaking people.
|
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
534
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:I'll accept an anti-cloak weapon, as soon as I can target and fire while remaining cloaked. Let me appear on overview for 0.25 seconds each time my torpedoes fire, but then I automatically re-cloak once they've launched.
Does anyone posting in favor of this idea realize that cloaked ships can't do anything to you except watch you? It would have to be a full second (probably closer to two) because that's how often EVE's servers tick. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
362
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
I tried for at least an hour to come up with a counter proposal but no matter what i thought up it made gatecamps impenetrable and / or it made exploration vessels worthless.
It is called changing local and how intel is gathered, doofus.
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 21:09:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Suzuka A1 wrote:I personally prefer the idea of very limited range EMP probes (not usable in WH space, high sec, or (maybe or maybe not) low sec) that warp to the destination then have a short time delay (so active cloakers can see them on d-scan and gtfo) and then emit their EMP and explode in the process. So they are one time use and a new item for industry people to make, and to be effective you have to have a small gang using the EMP probes, combat probes, and dps.
I think that is as balanced as you can get. Balanced how? Balanced if you ignore the fact that they represent the only real threat to PvE or other risk averse assets in system? Before you declare your idea to be balanced, you need to consider that cloaking is already balanced currently. Is it convenient when you want to mine / rat / run missions? Not necessarily, but that has no connection to balance. So, let's look at your proposal again: You are creating an EMP blast probe, presumably to decloak ships too close to it. This idea, standing alone as you have it, is an obvious shift in balance towards favoring the PvE assets. The same assets, (in case you were unaware), that can use local as a warning so they can hit warp and get safe every time. All they need to do is stay aligned, which is not difficult. That point being established, your idea is only useful to flush out the cloaked vessels, since you can remove all others at your leisure already, never having risked anything but dedicated PvP ships, and hardly that since it is typical to use overwhelming force. Where is the balance? When do the cloaked vessels get something in exchange for this newly found vulnerability?
Ok, fine. I should clarify, as I was trying to follow the K.I.S.S. method and left out some detail that I thought was implied.
Currently cloaky camping/AFK camping is thee single most unbalanced form of game play in null sec because they can move freely throughout a system for weeks without any danger to themself and MOST IMPORTANTLY (and my only reason for writing this in the first place) they can light a cyno or covert cyno and drop 1 to 255 people on you at anytime.
At this point it means your only defense is to 1) not do anything in your own system, 2) bubble the gates to hell and camp them 23/7 to make sure no one gets in, or 3) bait them and have a full fleet of 256 people sitting on a titan to be bridged in, so you can wipe the floor with the group that has been camping the system in hopes they will never do it again.
Important note: Cloaking in and of itself is currently fine. But in the above situation, it puts the cloaker in a situation where they are perfectly safe and can choose when it is safest for them to drop on a target (whether they wait minutes or weeks) and eve is not suppose to be safe.
Ok, now you asked, "When do the cloaked vessels get something in exchange for this newly found vulnerability?" to which I can point you to this quote, "[the probes] warp to the destination then have a short time delay (so active cloakers can see them on d-scan and gtfo) and then emit their EMP." Remember, I am specifically addressing AFK cloaky camping and thus active cloakers can bypass my proposed method very easily. Also note, I did not include numbers such as AU radius or the exact time delay because that it CCP's job to decide what works best.
A question for you, Nikk Narrel: You said, "This idea, standing alone as you have it, is an obvious shift in balance towards favoring the PvE assets." what do you mean by "shift in balance towards favoring PVE assets"? Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2012
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 21:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:Currently cloaky camping/AFK camping is thee single most unbalanced form of game play in null sec because they can move freely throughout a system for weeks without any danger to themself and MOST IMPORTANTLY (and my only reason for writing this in the first place) they can light a cyno or covert cyno and drop 1 to 255 people on you at anytime. It is not unbalanced. In fact, it's use most notoriously results in a stalemate condition, that while frustrating, is about as close as it gets to perfect balance.
You seem to give no credit to the ability, through use of free intel mindlessly provided by local chat, to get safe with 100% success. Put simply, it is not possible for a hostile pilot to force a failure in this chain of events resulting in a PvE pilot getting safe. That is broken. EVE is certainly not about consensual PvP, and this has many qualities of that.
But, it is balanced by the hostile ship being able to be unlocatable, which grants a measure of effectively near equal protection.
That is how it is balanced.
Suzuka A1 wrote:A question for you, Nikk Narrel: You said, "This idea, standing alone as you have it, is an obvious shift in balance towards favoring the PvE assets." what do you mean by "shift in balance towards favoring PVE assets"? Simple.
When you can locate, regardless of how much effort, that "AFK Cloaker", you can drive them out of the system, ending any stalemate circumstance they created by their presence.
This is of undeniable benefit to any PvE players wanting to operate in safety. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
363
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 22:22:00 -
[60] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:
Snipping to save space....
Suzuka,
My point is that you are, well, incorrect in your estimation of cloaked ships with an AFK pilot. Why? Because nobody in this game has ever died to an AFK player, let alone a cloaked ship. Now, you could argue that I'm being picky on that last one since for a cloak ship to pose any kind of real threat he will have to decloak at which point he is vulnerable. But still the point stands.
A cloaked ship is harmless. What it does represent is a potential threat. But that is not enough to nerf something in the game. If you look back over various nerfs you'll see that they were nerfed because of two factors:
1. They represented a very real threat to other players that were very hard to counter (e.g. nano hac gangs, tracking titans, even supers). 2. They created massive imbalance between groups in game regarding acquiring resources. (e.g. technetium, T2 BPOs).
A cloak is only a potential threat and it is in no way helping the player who engages in it acquire assets.
Further, a cloaked ship is only a minimal potential thread to the vast majority of PVE pilots*. Staying aligned and watching local greatly minimizes the risk. Once you safe up (and activate a cloak--how ironic), warping to POS or to an insta-dock for a station the PVE pilot is totally safe. Thanks to intel channels, others in nearby systems are also safer as well. Why? One simple mechanic that the AFK cloaking pilot used to send the PVE pilot to a safe haven: Local. In fact, the residents have two options at this point:
1. Try to bait the cloaker and send them home the fast route, or 2. Sending in their own cloaked alt to see what he does if anything and let people know if he leaves system (i.e. becomes active in some tell-tale way).
How is this accomplished? Again: local.
We can see that there is one mechanic in all of these aspects of play. That mechanic is, local. So, the real issue is local.
Why local is a problem:
Local offers the residents in a system unparalleled intel regarding hostiles, whether it is a fleet or a lone cloaking ship. Local is so good that the resident will have warning of a hostile pilot(s) even before the hostile(s) have a chance to load grid. Plenty of time for an alert PVE pilot who is aligned to warp off to safety. This is one reason why catching ratting bots is near impossible. A program never gets tired, its focus never wavers, and it is almost always going to be aligned, so when a hostile comes in it warps off and cloaks, and then has unbeatable patience to wait out the hostiles.
It is almost too easy. And there is some evidence to suggest that CCP thinks this too (I'm sorry, I'm too lazy to go find the threads I've linked these bits of evidence in, but if you search themittani.com for an article titled The Local Problem your should find it).
Once you deal with local it will likely cut the Gordian Knott known as AFK cloaking. If local is no longer the awesome intel tool it is now, then AFK cloaking could very well become pointless, and with other changes (i.e. hunting cloaked ships) could even become a dangerous form of game play.
Not changing local and simply nerfing cloaks practically hands isk to null PVE pilots on a silver platter. They still get the advanced warning and now hostiles have one less method to either disrupt their isk/resource generating activities and/or make BLOPs a viable method of asymmetrical warfare (many BLOPs gangs will park a cloaked hunter in a system to create a false sense of security in the hopes of luring a pilot into a dangerous situation where he can be killed).
No matter how you hard you try to make it it will eventually work out that players will use anti-AFK methods to make their null PVE activities about as safe as being docked.
As for your list of solutions you left off at least one option: rat in a group. If you have 5 ships with fits more geared towards PVP then it ill be harder for that cloaky to do anything by himself. And even if he has a cyno you'll have a better chance of killing the cyno if he is on grid and lights it close to you, and if it is a BLOPs gang they could be in serious trouble unless there are alot of them, and even then some of them will die to the ratters. And if it is a conventional cyno, learn where your enemies keep their titans for bridging.
And as for nothing being safe in Eve, I really hate that statement. Because unless you are going to give me a button that will let me eject people from stations when they are afk or out of their pos shields, then a cloak is not an issue. Sure the cloaked ship is perfectly safe when it is cloaked...but then again, so are you.
Quote: A question for you, Nikk Narrel: You said, "This idea, standing alone as you have it, is an obvious shift in balance towards favoring the PvE assets." what do you mean by "shift in balance towards favoring PVE assets"?
Hopefully Nikk wont mind if I put in my views on this one....
It means PVE will become incredibly safe. Everyone in null will have at least one alt that will have trained anti-AFK skills and will use them as soon as it becomes apparent a hostile shows up in local and is nowhere on D-scan. The pilot will either have to leave system, keep warping around to not be caught and thus unable to really do much, even if he has a cyno, or risk destruction. Ships that fit a cloak are incredibly weak when uncloaked for the most part.
*And let me note that I'm not disparaging PVE players/pilots as most of us do it at one time or another. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |