Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:13:00 -
[211] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Wow, you still sticking to this ship-crippling horrendously bad idea? Nothing like rendering a cloaking T3 completely useless when it decloaks. And you're sticking to the idea of making nullsec a cloaker's paradise. What's your point? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2137
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:19:00 -
[212] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:I can image a 900 ship Goonswarm cruiser fleet (nothing against Goonswarm) sitting in waiting for attack in cloaked ships with no means to detect them. GǪexcept that they will automatically be detected GÇö especially if there's that many of them. So no, that wouldn't be abused because the game makes it impossible. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:26:00 -
[213] - Quote
Tippia wrote:YuuKnow wrote:I can image a 900 ship Goonswarm cruiser fleet (nothing against Goonswarm) sitting in waiting for attack in cloaked ships with no means to detect them. GǪexcept that they will automatically be detected GÇö especially if there's that many of them. So no, that wouldn't be abused because the game makes it impossible. I'd like to have some of this magic of yours. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2137
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:31:00 -
[214] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'd like to have some of this magic of yours. L2P .
If you don't even know the basics of the game, maybe you shouldn't try to GÇ£fixGÇ¥ the more intricate bits, hmm?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
773
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:34:00 -
[215] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Wow, you still sticking to this ship-crippling horrendously bad idea? Nothing like rendering a cloaking T3 completely useless when it decloaks. And you're sticking to the idea of making nullsec a cloaker's paradise. What's your point?
I wonder how the smaller corps and alliances would react if null became this alleged "cloaker's paradise" instead of the supercap paradise it is?
Personally, I'm sticking to the idea of not breaking wormholes. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:48:00 -
[216] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I'd like to have some of this magic of yours. L2P . If you don't even know the basics of the game, maybe you shouldn't try to GÇ£fixGÇ¥ the more intricate bits, hmm? You're the one saying that a cloaked gang will be automatically found out, when it doesn't appear in local and doesn't appear on any form for scans, not me.
I can only assume that you think there'll be a scout on all gates and all wormholes at all times during the day. In which case, heh, good luck with that pipedream. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:49:00 -
[217] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:I wonder how the smaller corps and alliances would react if null became this alleged "cloaker's paradise" instead of the supercap paradise it is?
Personally, I'm sticking to the idea of not breaking wormholes. They'd run around in cloaked gangs for a few weeks before the carebears'll go back to empire, at which point these smaller corps and alliances would start whining yet again about how hard it is to get a gank.
Meanwhile they'd have absolutely no impact on the already established alliances. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2139
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:53:00 -
[218] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You're the one saying that a cloaked gang will be automatically found out, when it doesn't appear in local and doesn't appear on any form for scans, not me. That's because I know what intel is available in the game, and you don't. That's also the reason why I understand why local needs to either have a hard counter GÇö AFK cloaking GÇö or needs to be adjusted to provide far less intel than it currently does.
The supposed need for a counter-counter only shows how dependent people have become on their (otherwise) foolproof intel toll, which is a glaringly obvious indication of what the actual problem is and what part is is that needs to be adjustedGǪ and it definitely isn't cloaking. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
774
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:53:00 -
[219] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:I wonder how the smaller corps and alliances would react if null became this alleged "cloaker's paradise" instead of the supercap paradise it is?
Personally, I'm sticking to the idea of not breaking wormholes. They'd run around in cloaked gangs for a few weeks before the carebears'll go back to empire, at which point these smaller corps and alliances would start whining yet again about how hard it is to get a gank. Meanwhile they'd have absolutely no impact on the already established alliances.
You don't think the "already established alliances" would be affected by having their bot programs rendered nearly useless as rival alliances take advantage of being able to do a little economic warfare hunting bots? Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
QFX
SniggWaffe Band of Abos
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 13:53:00 -
[220] - Quote
This idea is stupid. Theres better ideas out there, like the no local one.
Your idea would be obsolete since people just warp from one point to another every 3-5 minutes and done. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
324
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 14:04:00 -
[221] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:You don't think the "already established alliances" would be affected by having their bot programs rendered nearly useless as rival alliances take advantage of being able to do a little economic warfare hunting bots? Yes, I'm sure we'll weep heartily into our bismuth tea because someone thinks they're doing major economic warfare against the whole alliance by taking out "bots". |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
774
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 14:10:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:You don't think the "already established alliances" would be affected by having their bot programs rendered nearly useless as rival alliances take advantage of being able to do a little economic warfare hunting bots? Yes, I'm sure we'll weep heartily into our bismuth tea because someone thinks they're doing major economic warfare against the whole alliance by taking out "bots".
At least we agree on something... but I prefer Earl Grey personally. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3325
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 18:50:00 -
[223] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:The local debate is sooo much deeper than a simple anti-cloak probe and strikes at the fundamental mechanics of null sec and alliance sovereign itself. Its a topic in an entirely different level of impact than just a simple counter-cloak. Your OP is in regards to AFK cloaking, which needs local to work. So yes, it is directly related.
YuuKnow wrote:Exactly. Like I said above, folks that are turning this into a "Remove Local" debate probably don't realize the major change to some of the fundamentals of Alliance space and warfare it would entail... whether good or bad. That's another discussion. No those that know why people AFK, are simply pointing out it's due to local and not cloaks. You'll actually find many of us that have posted so much here, actually like the status quo.
Yes they have been around for 8 years, which makes your assertion look silly.
YuuKnow wrote:Really? More of the "ITS BROKEN!" Seriously? Personally I like cloaking and use it frequently. If this was something that would break cloaking all together I wouldn't propose it because I use cloaking myself... it does make it more challenging though. The actuality is that invunerable *Cloaky* actually is what adds another layer of intel power on top of the already powerful local intel channel. So glad you think that link, makes your argument stronger. I never said it was broken, I'm actually on record as saying I believe it's balanced as of now. You're the one asking for a change because you think something is broken, or have you forgotten that fact?
Cloaks actually add a layer of challenge to local intel, hence why there are so many whine threads in regards to AFKing with them.
YuuKnow wrote:Perhaps you prefer a game of dragons, elves, and magic lollipops? It would have as much relevance as RL analogies, but nice straw man argument.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
YuuKnow
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 04:17:00 -
[224] - Quote
Haruhi Hime wrote:What if I orbit a random CAN at 100km CLAOKED ? HOW WILL U FIND ME THEN
Ha! It would be very tough and even then would need a lot of luck. The can would give away that you might be somewhere around... but then you might lay the can as a diversion and your really one of the other 'unidentified signiftures altogether...
I like it. |
YuuKnow
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 04:49:00 -
[225] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Notice something important here? You're completely leaving out the fact that by being able to detect cloaked ships with these probes you're breaking wormhole intel gathering. Simply being able to tell someone is in your hole cloaked is enough to spoil the intel.
Knowing that a spy is amongst makes things more interesting IMHO
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 04:52:00 -
[226] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:Haruhi Hime wrote:What if I orbit a random CAN at 100km CLAOKED ? HOW WILL U FIND ME THEN Ha! It would be very tough and even then would need a lot of luck. The can would give away that you might be somewhere around... but then you might lay the can as a diversion and your really one of the other 'unidentified signiftures altogether... I like it.
Blast the can.... probe again? |
YuuKnow
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 05:54:00 -
[227] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Your OP is in regards to AFK cloaking, which needs local to work. So yes, it is directly related. Nope. The anticloaking probes would have the same function with or without local.
Quote:No those that know why people AFK, are simply pointing out it's due to local and not cloaks. You'll actually find many of us that have posted so much here, actually like the status quo. Down with the status quo. This makes things more interesting.
Quote:Yes they have been around for nearly 8 years, which makes your assertion look silly. YOUR insertion that an adjustment in cloaks/anticloak mechanics altogether "breaks cloaks' is what is silly. You missed the point entirely.
Quote:So glad you think that link, makes your argument stronger. This one's better. http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1975/crying6gs.gif
Quote:I never said it was broken, I'm actually on record as saying I believe it's balanced as of now. Uh-huh. Learn to read. Your the one claiming that any change in cloak/anticloak mechanics will 'break' cloaks...Need a reminder? |
YuuKnow
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 05:54:00 -
[228] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Yes and it breaks cloaks without addressing the cause for AFKing. It also adds another layer of intel power on top of the already powerful local intel channel. That is not a balanced approach. Sounds like a 'it'll be broken' cry to me.
Quote:You're the one asking for a change because you think something is broken, or have you forgotten that fact? And wrong again. Not once anywhere in this thread did I ever say said anything was 'broken'. Just that there are ways to make the game better. Learn to read.
Quote:Cloaks actually add a layer of challenge to local intel, hence why there are so many whine threads in regards to AFKing with them. And once again wrong. The reason that these type of request are coming up over and over again is that alot of us think that a game mechanic that grants absolute 100% invunerability is lame.
Quote:It would have as much relevance as RL analogies, but nice straw man argument. Just trying to break it down into terms that you might be able to understand |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2146
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 06:57:00 -
[229] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:Quote:I never said it was broken, I'm actually on record as saying I believe it's balanced as of now. Uh-huh. Learn to read. Your the one claiming that any change in cloak/anticloak mechanics will 'break' cloaks...Need a reminder? Mag's wrote:Yes and it breaks cloaks without addressing the cause for AFKing. It also adds another layer of intel power on top of the already powerful local intel channel. That is not a balanced approach. Sounds like a 'it'll be broken' cry to me. So where does he say that it's broken? There is this thing called GǣtenseGǣ, you knowGǪ it's quite important, and you should learn it.
Quote:Quote:Cloaks actually add a layer of challenge to local intel, hence why there are so many whine threads in regards to AFKing with them. And once again wrong. The reason that these type of request are coming up over and over again is that alot of us think that a game mechanic that grants absolute 100% invunerability is lame. GǪwhich makes it all the more strange that cloaking keeps appearing GÇö AFK cloaking in particular GÇö since it doesn't grant any such thing. Oh, and the stated reason for most of the whines is indeed AFK cloaking. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 07:18:00 -
[230] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:And once again wrong. The reason that these type of request are coming up over and over again is that alot of us think that a game mechanic that grants absolute 100% invunerability is lame.]
That's curious as that's also a reason to remove Local Chat Intel,
Cloaked at a safe spot and not doing anything grants the same invulnerability as being docked in a station. As soon as you actually do something you're not invulnerable anymore.
|
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
777
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 11:20:00 -
[231] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Notice something important here? You're completely leaving out the fact that by being able to detect cloaked ships with these probes you're breaking wormhole intel gathering. Simply being able to tell someone is in your hole cloaked is enough to spoil the intel. Knowing that a spy is amongst makes things more interesting IMHO
But that's because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Let me explain.
Some time back, the C2 I was in at the time had someone park a scanner in there with the intent on basically invading and blowing our stuff up. At the time, my defenses were low and I was pack-ratting at my pos... so there was plenty of loot to be had. However, this individual made the mistake of letting us know he was there. As a result, with a little consulting withthe alliance as well, we were able to basically pack up all our unneeded stuff (and a lot of stuff that we used but could live without), haul all that to safe stations in high sec, bring in a crapload of ECM and guns and turn my slightly defenses loot pinata into a barren hedgehog of doom. Long story short, the attack never materialized. We were able to turn things around, make the risk/reward not worth it, simply because he did it wrong... he let us know he's there.
Now.. if everyone could scan out cloaked vessels and even find the people that are putting in the effort to be unseen and unknown while gathering good intel, that breaks the entire system. The risk/reward on invading a hole goes crap out the window.
You break wormhole PvP by not allowing those that earn good intel through discretion to have a chance to be successful.
This only pertains to the invasion aspect... it's also going to kill small scale PvP, which is most common in holes. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
329
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 12:10:00 -
[232] - Quote
And the only argument I've seen so far against "running silent" has been "but but but I'd be weak as a kitten if I want to be completely safe" and "but it might mean I can't get as much loot because they can see me at the wormhole, so they won't run!". Compare that to "nullsec will be depopulated" and "cloaked ships will be overpowered", and we're literally looking at masters of balance right here. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
777
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:02:00 -
[233] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:And the only argument I've seen so far against "running silent" has been "but but but I'd be weak as a kitten if I want to be completely safe" and "but it might mean I can't get as much loot because they can see me at the wormhole, so they won't run!". Compare that to "nullsec will be depopulated" and "cloaked ships will be overpowered", and we're literally looking at masters of balance right here.
No, the problem with your moronic idea is that it would take a good twenty minutes, at least, for a tengu to online all it's mods and be a viable fighting ship again. As it is now a cloaky tengu is notably weaker than a non-cloaked counterpart, you'd be rendering them completely ineffective.
And, the probes idea would still be breaking wormholes, as noted. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
329
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:06:00 -
[234] - Quote
And the idea of making cloaked ships excempt from local breaks nullsec. Your point? |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
777
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:08:00 -
[235] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:And the idea of making cloaked ships excempt from local breaks nullsec. Your point?
The vast majority seems to disagree with you. You ignore the fact that you'd be completely crippling ships that are already disadvantaged while equipping cloaks as well as completely ignoring the fact you're breaking wormhole PvP just because you don't have that warm, snuggly feeling in null sec where the bots frolic in the flowers all day in completely safety. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:12:00 -
[236] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And the only argument I've seen so far against "running silent" has been "but but but I'd be weak as a kitten if I want to be completely safe" and "but it might mean I can't get as much loot because they can see me at the wormhole, so they won't run!". Compare that to "nullsec will be depopulated" and "cloaked ships will be overpowered", and we're literally looking at masters of balance right here. No, the problem with your moronic idea is that it would take a good twenty minutes, at least, for a tengu to online all it's mods and be a viable fighting ship again. As it is now a cloaky tengu is notably weaker than a non-cloaked counterpart, you'd be rendering them completely ineffective. And, the probes idea would still be breaking wormholes, as noted.
Just to clarify, are you using this Tengu for the purposes of intel gathering? If such is the case it doesn't matter how long it would take you to become combat effective as that is not the reason you are there. As such this idea does not break the tactics you have been using as an argument against most "changes" to cloaks, namely that of WH intel gathering. If however this Tengu is actively hunting, and requires being fully combat effective at a moments notice, it would carry the potential to be discovered. The Tengu would be at no risk of actually being de-cloaked/ attacked if not AFK . Not an ideal trade-off perhaps, but not necessarily a game-breaking one.
As for the time taken to on-line mods, this could always be tweaked for balance, as could the need to uncloak in order to do it (never actually tried to online mods while cloaked, so uncertain whether it is currently possible). Obviously a cov-ops frig/ bomber is going to be a lot faster to power-up than a recon/ T3 cruiser, but I don't see this as a major issue tbh (and I have been a cov-ops+Recon pilot for a long time).
If your Tengu is both intel gatherer and, at the point of invasion (remaining with the idea of a WH invasion here), needed as a combat-effective ship, then surely a twenty minute "warm up" (at current timings) is not a huge deal if your fleet is already on their way and/ or ready to jump in? Is twenty minutes going to result in all the WH defences being upgraded, and their expensive toys/ loot removed? This is of course assuming that the defenders are actually looking for a cloaky, or you don't have a safe out of range of probes at which to power-up.
It is by no means a perfect solution, but it does try to address the concerns of both sides without breaking cloaks for intel gathering, unlike many other (most others in fact) would.
And in Zims defence (not that I actually agree with most of his/ her posts), it was my moronic idea, I'm good at moronic ideas
If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
777
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Lord Zim wrote:And the only argument I've seen so far against "running silent" has been "but but but I'd be weak as a kitten if I want to be completely safe" and "but it might mean I can't get as much loot because they can see me at the wormhole, so they won't run!". Compare that to "nullsec will be depopulated" and "cloaked ships will be overpowered", and we're literally looking at masters of balance right here. No, the problem with your moronic idea is that it would take a good twenty minutes, at least, for a tengu to online all it's mods and be a viable fighting ship again. As it is now a cloaky tengu is notably weaker than a non-cloaked counterpart, you'd be rendering them completely ineffective. And, the probes idea would still be breaking wormholes, as noted. Just to clarify, are you using this Tengu for the purposes of intel gathering? If such is the case it doesn't matter how long it would take you to become combat effective as that is not the reason you are there. As such this idea does not break the tactics you have been using as an argument against most "changes" to cloaks, namely that of WH intel gathering. If however this Tengu is actively hunting, and requires being fully combat effective at a moments notice, it would carry the potential to be discovered. The Tengu would be at no risk of actually being de-cloaked/ attacked if not AFK . Not an ideal trade-off perhaps, but not necessarily a game-breaking one. As for the time taken to on-line mods, this could always be tweaked for balance, as could the need to uncloak in order to do it (never actually tried to online mods while cloaked, so uncertain whether it is currently possible). Obviously a cov-ops frig/ bomber is going to be a lot faster to power-up than a recon/ T3 cruiser, but I don't see this as a major issue tbh (and I have been a cov-ops+Recon pilot for a long time). If your Tengu is both intel gatherer and, at the point of invasion (remaining with the idea of a WH invasion here), needed as a combat-effective ship, then surely a twenty minute "warm up" (at current timings) is not a huge deal if your fleet is already on their way and/ or ready to jump in? Is twenty minutes going to result in all the WH defences being upgraded, and their expensive toys/ loot removed? This is of course assuming that the defenders are actually looking for a cloaky, or you don't have a safe out of range of probes at which to power-up. It is by no means a perfect solution, but it does try to address the concerns of both sides without breaking cloaks for intel gathering, unlike many other (most others in fact) would. It would of course depend what, if any, measure were implemented to make cloaked ships detectable. Anything that was easily spammed (simple probes) for continuous periods, would be over powered. And in Zims defence (not that I actually agree with most of his/ her posts), it was my moronic idea, I'm good at moronic ideas
One example of a huge problem with... say your tengu has everything offline. You hop into a hole, locate a pos in the system and fly in for a closer look, but get caught and decloaked in a bubble trap. Now you can't fire up your tank and have a chance to escape. You get popped like a zit.
Try this... get into your stealth bomber, have a friend in space waiting for you. "Sneak" up on him with everything offlined except the cloak. See how long it takes from the moment you decide to attack to the moment you actually can attack.
Yes, by the way... with the reduced online/offline time for pos systems twenty minutes is a lot of time to do what you need. You could slap up another couple dozen ECM if you were so inclined easily (and had them on hand). You could wrestle hole control away from the crippled tengu quickly and cut off a means for entry for the fleet. It's just a really, really bad proposal. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 16:00:00 -
[238] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:
One example of a huge problem with... say your tengu has everything offline. You hop into a hole, locate a pos in the system and fly in for a closer look, but get caught and decloaked in a bubble trap. Now you can't fire up your tank and have a chance to escape. You get popped like a zit.
In one of my earlier posts I did address just this issue. The off-lining of mods would only occur when you had taken up a position from which to gather intel. Any counter-cloak measure would (should) have a sufficiently long cycle time to allow for this. If it didn't it would be far to over-powered imho. I'm not at all in favour of making any anti-cloak measure a quick or easy option.
Quote:Try this... get into your stealth bomber, have a friend in space waiting for you. "Sneak" up on him with everything offlined except the cloak. See how long it takes from the moment you decide to attack to the moment you actually can attack.
This was kind of the whole point. Active hunters would not off-line their mods, or at least not all of them. How many mods you kept on-line would have an effect on how easy it would be to detect you. If you want complete immunity from detection for an unlimited period of time, that's the trade-off. Whether you would consider that a fair trade is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to be fully active, you would have to be at the keyboard, or at least not go AFK for too long. The only real downside to this is it would make the psychological aspect of AFK cloaking a lot harder to achieve. I'll admit this is not something I'm completely happy with as I do feel that it is an important aspect of the use of cloaks.
Quote:Yes, by the way... with the reduced online/offline time for pos systems twenty minutes is a lot of time to do what you need. You could slap up another couple dozen ECM if you were so inclined easily (and had them on hand). You could wrestle hole control away from the crippled tengu quickly and cut off a means for entry for the fleet. It's just a really, really bad proposal.
Ok, thanks. I don't operate pos's so have little first-hand knowledge of their operation. That said, if pos-bashing is the primary aim of the invasion, just how critical to that is a cloaky tengu (a fully operational one that is) going to be in the first few minutes? And would a delay to that Tengu's fully-operational status be a huge loss to the attackers? The DPS loss is marginal, other cloaky roles (warp-ins etc.) would still be perfectly viable even if most mods are off-line.
If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
777
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 16:50:00 -
[239] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote: In one of my earlier posts I did address just this issue. The off-lining of mods would only occur when you had taken up a position from which to gather intel. Any counter-cloak measure would (should) have a sufficiently long cycle time to allow for this. If it didn't it would be far to over-powered imho. I'm not at all in favour of making any anti-cloak measure a quick or easy option.
If these are probes. all you need to do is launch them at maximum range around the system, outside of dscan range from potential targets. All you need is a hit, no matter how faint, to give away the presence of someone in there. That's enough to break the system.
Quote: This was kind of the whole point. Active hunters would not off-line their mods, or at least not all of them. How many mods you kept on-line would have an effect on how easy it would be to detect you. If you want complete immunity from detection for an unlimited period of time, that's the trade-off. Whether you would consider that a fair trade is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to be fully active, you would have to be at the keyboard, or at least not go AFK for too long. The only real downside to this is it would make the psychological aspect of AFK cloaking a lot harder to achieve. I'll admit this is not something I'm completely happy with as I do feel that it is an important aspect of the use of cloaks.
You never know when you're going to be going from an actively hunting role to an observing role or visa versa. It's unpredictable. You'd force ships to be locked into a role whether they like it or not.
So... this isn't really even about fixing the mythical "afk cloak" issue? What's it for then... simply breaking cloaking for the sake of breaking cloaking?
Quote: Ok, thanks. I don't operate pos's so have little first-hand knowledge of their operation. That said, if pos-bashing is the primary aim of the invasion, just how critical to that is a cloaky tengu (a fully operational one that is) going to be in the first few minutes? And would a delay to that Tengu's fully-operational status be a huge loss to the attackers? The DPS loss is marginal, other cloaky roles (warp-ins etc.) would still be perfectly viable even if most mods are off-line.
Like I said... you may have to go from watching the pos to having to actively and quickly hunt down a scanning vessel before it can open the hole to allow reinforcements in. You never know, it's unpredictable what can happen. Targets of opportunity can appear at any time, as can targets of necessity. Forcing ships to offline mods is crippling, a really bad idea and highly detrimental to wormhole PvP (likely null as well). Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3326
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 19:07:00 -
[240] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:Nope. The anticloaking probes would have the same function with or without local. But your reason for this idea is AFK cloaking, which relies upon local to work. So it is therefor directly related, no matter how you try to spin it.
YuuKnow wrote:Down with the status quo. This makes things more interesting. YOUR insertion that an adjustment in cloaks/anticloak mechanics altogether "breaks cloaks' is what is silly. You missed the point entirely. It quite obviously does, without actually address the reason for the idea in the OP. Which for this debate would be AFKing. Making things more interesting, should be looked at with balance in mind. Your idea does not.
Personally I believe 7+ years of cloaked ship use, to be a hell of a lot longer than 1+ without. In that first 1+ year we didn't have probes, can you do the math?
YuuKnow wrote:Uh-huh. Learn to read. Your the one claiming that any change in cloak/anticloak mechanics will 'break' cloaks...Need a reminder? Irony. Please point to where I say where I said "it is" or "it was" broken.
YuuKnow wrote:And wrong again. Not once anywhere in this thread did I ever say said anything was 'broken'. Just that there are ways to make the game better. Learn to read. It's not broken then, glad we agree. Which begs the question: Do you want to change mechanics that are balanced and cause them to be unbalanced? Sounds like an odd stance to take tbh.
YuuKnow wrote:And once again wrong. The reason that these type of request are coming up over and over again is that alot of us think that a game mechanic that grants absolute 100% invunerability is lame. Just trying to break it down into terms that you might be able to understand Answer me this, what mechanic are they using, to interact with and create fear to others in the system, whilst they are AFK?
First a straw man and now ad hominem, you must be winning the argument. At this rate, you'll be telling "your Mum" jokes next.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |