|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 11:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think being able to probe down a cloaked ship is all that's necessary. It won't really affect anyone who's actually interacting or scouting the system or participating in any kind of blops activities.
Cloaking itself is fine and there is no need for a decloaking module. It seems a little odd that as soon as someone makes a safe and cloaks up, no amount of players, skills, effort, etc. can do anything about it. I cannot think of a single example in any situation where you can hide anywhere perfectly without the chance of being found. And the fact that all of your probes, dscan, and other sensors work perfectly fine while cloaked, makes it almost as bad as the local chat problem. But I don't think that needs to be changed either. If you are in a hostile system, making yourself safe shouldn't be as simple as fitting a cheap module. And while local may be broken, I don't think that eliminating it completely would solve this. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 12:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Pouring some new oil into the fire, eh? You should know that skilled probers only need about 5 seconds to scan someone down. So if ppl can suddenly scan down cloaked ships, I want to be able to deploy mobile decoys without uncloaking. And I want something to expell docked players from their stations, because it's clearly unbalanced since I can't do anything against docked players.
You should also know that the 5-second time only applies when A) you have probes pre-positioned and B) you know the general area of the ship. You will never be able to find a random safe with just one go.
And I'm assuming the automatic undock is in reference to the decloaking module that I suggested against. But I geuss you could just flip the station to your alliance and wait for him to make his move. Works pretty much the same way. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 12:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Rowells wrote: You should also know that the 5-second time only applies when A) you have probes pre-positioned and B) you know the general area of the ship. You will never be able to find a random safe with just one go.
And I'm assuming the automatic undock is in reference to the decloaking module that I suggested against. But I geuss you could just flip the station to your alliance and wait for him to make his move. Works pretty much the same way.
A) Bless odyssey for You can now deploy probes in a predefined pattern! B) Generaly speaking near one of the planets or other celestial bodies.You an set Your scan radius large enough to get all safe spots nearby and at the same time small enough to catch anything with the first scan. So, in short: NO! BAD IDEA! Where's the link to the collection of "anti cloaking" thread when you need it. NoNo, it doesn't work the same way. The dockling expellant module (sounds like some chemical added to some laundry detergent) would just force undock someone from a station AND warp him away 100km in a straigt line, and It'd ofc have a cycle time of 1 minute. It'd be PERFECTLY BALANCED! Nobody should enjoy perfect safety for zero effort once logged in!
You're absolutely right. I am so tired of having to work for these kills nowadays. EVE has gotten so much harder lately, hasn't it? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 23:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Rowells wrote:
You should also know that the 5-second time only applies when A) you have probes pre-positioned and B) you know the general area of the ship. You will never be able to find a random safe with just one go.
Keep the probes close in on your fleet, keep them cycling, and you're literally immune to stealth bombers. Why do you want to buff blobs? Having someone in a probe ship keeping gaurd is akin to having a pvp escort. It is a fairy tale that never really happens |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 23:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I want a pony. A pink one.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XuJuckiofe8/Sgm_o05rQAI/AAAAAAAAAcc/13M_o8TLW6k/s1600-h/pink_pony.jpg
Will this suffice? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 00:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:You bring in the option to find every bomber that tried to hit you and you can 100% guarantee that it will happen when any fleet is in one place for any length of time. bringing a few probers along will be pretty much mandatory.
Well, that's sort of the idea. If your in a system with 50+ hostile a hunting your 10 man gang there should have to be some effort into staying hidden properly. Periodically bounce safes and celestials. We already use this tactic even for non-cloaky ships trying to run. And I know that often bomber fleets will scatter themselves across the system until they actually have a target and are ready to drop. By that time even having the best probers in EVE won't do much to stop them. At that point probing won't do anything and it comes down to a fleets ability to react and counter-attack/flee. And when it comes to a blopdrop none if this really comes into play. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 11:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:
So the idea is to make it impossible to bomb large fleets? If I have 250 guys in my fleet, and there are 40 hostile bombers setting up for a run, then it will be incredibly easy to find them and warp the prober and his squad on top of them to kill them before they can hit me. Explain why that is a good idea?
Right now bombers are a great way to take down a fleet with much lower numbers. Explain why you want this removed.
If the bombers are gathering on the target then they are too close to warp. And when they are waiting for a target (like I said before) they are scattered at positions of each pilots own discretion (not all eggs in one basket. There's always that one lemming who might accidentally decloak all his buddies) so having scattered forces reduces the impact if any one pilot is caught. This isn't a new tactic either, people already use this. If they are competent pilots they are aligned toward a celestial near target and ready to go. That's how guerrilla tactics work. That's what covert ops are. Even a non-cloaked ships evade capture so long as they are constantly moving (the exception being larger, less agile ships). It's not that difficult nor too complicated.
EDIT: Snipped for size |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 12:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Cloaking is not an issue. AFK cloaking is not an issue. There is another potential problem there but I'm still waiting for someone to state it.
CCP gave me a donut holder, but no donuts |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.17 20:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Rowells wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Rowells wrote:
You should also know that the 5-second time only applies when A) you have probes pre-positioned and B) you know the general area of the ship. You will never be able to find a random safe with just one go.
Keep the probes close in on your fleet, keep them cycling, and you're literally immune to stealth bombers. Why do you want to buff blobs? Having someone in a probe ship keeping gaurd is akin to having a pvp escort. It is a fairy tale that never really happens Or a person with an alt, which happens all the freaking time. Or a booster ship with a probe launcher...that never ever happens...oh wait...
You have a point with the booster alt. however I still fail to see how this makes you immune to bombers. Just because I know there's a murder in my house doesn't mean he's all of the sudden unable to kill me. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 00:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:
Cloaked bombers don't decloak one another.
Bombers gathering on perches in positions to hit the fleet will now easily be found, warped to and killed before they can bomb.
Scatter them too much and you can't do the four runs from four directions to skullfuck a fleet thing.
If I know bombers are on grid or very close to my fleet, I can have my dictors get defensive bubbles up, my anti-support get ready, my fleet turn off MWDs, my logis lock things up, and if they're close enough, think about overheating hardeners just to be sure.
i never said cloaked ships declaok each other, but remember it takes on person who forgets to cloak up before gathering with his mates and he screws everyone else. It happens.
You won't need to see the enemy to know that they are in covert ops ships. knowing that bombers are in system should not change how prepared your fleet is. if you brought anti-bomber support, then they are most likely always set up for that task. Bubbling your own fleet simply because bombers are close is not a wise choice in most situations, many FC's just have the fleet aligned out if they know they're being hunted. In situations where the only threat is a bomber gang, then you are definitely more prepared for it as you said, anti-support, turn off MWDs, etc. however if your fleet also has other concerns, the you have to decide between being on constant anti bomber status, or working to complete the fleets objective. and this is all assuming that every gang bombers come up against have a dedicated prober. I know that most large fleets do since it becomes an invaluable tool, but at that point the probers are working to find the enemies forces, not a smaller gang of bombers. it's simple strategy: i waste time and effort hunting bombers down while the enemy fleet is left to do as it pleases, or i can focus on the main objective of eliminating the larger threat and completing my objective. So in situations where fleets will have anti-bomber support, their attention is not fully focused on your gang. In situations where the enemy is actively seeking you out it will be more difficult. At that point it becomes a real clash of tactics, will, and fleet discipline.
Unless the FC is willing to dedicate a decent portion of his force to catch you napping somewhere, which is risky business in terms of fleet warfare (not to mention extremely difficult management-wise), then so long as you keep a good eye on them you should have enough warning, even if its only a few seconds, to gtfo. Again, emphasizing the guerrilla tactics here.
IMO if you are in a frigate (forget cloakys for a second) and an enemy fleet can warp on you and catch you, then that sucks. you are flying the most agile ships in the game and you cant evade a force much larger than yours then it's not poor game mechanics, it's lack of skill. even if another frigate catches you, as the smaller force your strategy is to run until you have an advantage, so sitting still hoping your safe is the best safe is bad tactics.
When it comes to a bombing run, it does not matter how many logis have locked each other up. if the damage is enough the bombs will kill their targets. And burning out your modules simply because you THINK your about to get bombed is a little over-paranoid and will cost you when another threat arises.
So yes, some of your tactics are possible, but they have major drawbacks that the FC and pilots have to consider or else it could end up with the pod express home that night. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 00:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:Rowells wrote: it's simple strategy: i waste time and effort hunting bombers down while the enemy fleet is left to do as it pleases, or i can focus on the main objective of eliminating the larger threat and completing my objective. So basically you let enemy fleet movements dictate your own fleet movements. Someone has not been reading his Art of War book. Ah yes, I skipped the chapter on prioritizing threats during interstellar warfare in virtual environments. Please forgive my ignorance on this matter. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Yes, but he's still applying them wrong with the example I gave. |
|
|
|