EVE Search - [Issue] Cloaking, aggro and logoff mechanics

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Cloaking, aggro and logoff mechanics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vitelius Decorum Inc	Posted - 2009.03.27 21:45:00 - [1] This is a serious issue which hasn't been addressed properly although there has been talk about it for god knows how long. The underlying problems are: Regular cloaking devices (non-covert ops cloaks) and the mechanics that dictate that a cloaked ship is impossible to scan down. Aggro timer when engaging anything. Currently we have the 15 minute aggro timer when you engage a player ship and log off but aggroing NPC ships is not taken into account, this being a major issue when a person spontaneously logs off Spontaneous logoffs when being aggressed by NPCs, like mentioned above The issue with non-covops cloaking devices has been raised many times already and it has been acknowledged, yet nothing has been made to correct it. At the same time scanning mechanics have been completely revamped, scanning out ships is now more time consuming than ever before while a simple module like a prototype cloaking device can effectively make you invulnerable. Effectively what this means is that in a supposedly harsh environment of 0.0 a player can simply warp off and cloak using a non-covops cloak before anything can catch it. A battleship with a prototype cloak can warp off an asteroid belt and cloak (and therefore become invulnerable) before ANY ship can warp in to the belt and tackle the battleship. I'm fine with being slow and having crappy reactions but when catching a battleship on a belt 1,000,000 km off the gate you're jumping in from with an interceptor is considered impossible there must be something fundamentally wrong. The biggest problem of course is the non-human factor in most of the forementioned cases. The player is using a macro/bot of some kind and therefore can react way before a human on the other side can react. Even this I can still accept but the fact that they do this AND then use a fundamentally flawed mod like the prototype cloak to become invulnerable is just unacceptable. The other variant that we've seen is that the player simply logs off as soon as another player enters the system and with no proper aggro timer present from shooting NPCs the player is impossible to catch, especially after making ship scanning even harder than what it used to be. Summarizing the post, scanning has been made more time consuming than before while no aggro/logoff/cloaking mechanics have been altered. This has been unbalanced for a long time and is even more unbalanced now. The biggest problem I see here is the macros and the current mechanics that make these macros possible and profitable to use. This has to change, either by seriously affecting the penalties of fitting a non-covert ops cloak, making the non-covert cloaks finally scannable or by changing the logoff/aggro mechanics. Something just has to be done. ---
Alon Black	Posted - 2009.03.27 23:05:00 - [2] Originally by: Vitelius This is a serious issue which hasn't been addressed properly although there has been talk about it for god knows how long. The underlying problems are: Regular cloaking devices (non-covert ops cloaks) and the mechanics that dictate that a cloaked ship is impossible to scan down. Aggro timer when engaging anything. Currently we have the 15 minute aggro timer when you engage a player ship and log off but aggroing NPC ships is not taken into account, this being a major issue when a person spontaneously logs off Spontaneous logoffs when being aggressed by NPCs, like mentioned above The issue with non-covops cloaking devices has been raised many times already and it has been acknowledged, yet nothing has been made to correct it. At the same time scanning mechanics have been completely revamped, scanning out ships is now more time consuming than ever before while a simple module like a prototype cloaking device can effectively make you invulnerable. Effectively what this means is that in a supposedly harsh environment of 0.0 a player can simply warp off and cloak using a non-covops cloak before anything can catch it. A battleship with a prototype cloak can warp off an asteroid belt and cloak (and therefore become invulnerable) before ANY ship can warp in to the belt and tackle the battleship. I'm fine with being slow and having crappy reactions but when catching a battleship on a belt 1,000,000 km off the gate you're jumping in from with an interceptor is considered impossible there must be something fundamentally wrong. The biggest problem of course is the non-human factor in most of the forementioned cases. The player is using a macro/bot of some kind and therefore can react way before a human on the other side can react. Even this I can still accept but the fact that they do this AND then use a fundamentally flawed mod like the prototype cloak to become invulnerable is just unacceptable. The other variant that we've seen is that the player simply logs off as soon as another player enters the system and with no proper aggro timer present from shooting NPCs the player is impossible to catch, especially after making ship scanning even harder than what it used to be. Summarizing the post, scanning has been made more time consuming than before while no aggro/logoff/cloaking mechanics have been altered. This has been unbalanced for a long time and is even more unbalanced now. The biggest problem I see here is the macros and the current mechanics that make these macros possible and profitable to use. This has to change, either by seriously affecting the penalties of fitting a non-covert ops cloak, making the non-covert cloaks finally scannable or by changing the logoff/aggro mechanics. Something just has to be done. I hate to sound like a **** here but.... Isn't it called a "Cloak" for a reason? The only improvement I can see to your situation is a drastic increase in either the difficulty to produce cloaks of all types - or a drastic increase in training times to use them. I'm also not sure what you were getting at with the log-off mechanics. Ships that have logged off can still be scanned down for something like two hours I believe? Maybe I'm just wrong, feel free to correct me. Or clarify this some more, and I'll support.
remac	Posted - 2009.03.28 00:22:00 - [3] Edited by: remac on 28/03/2009 00:23:47 Originally by: Alon Black ..... Ships that have logged off can still be scanned down for something like two hours I believe? Maybe I'm just wrong, feel free to correct me. Or clarify this some more, and I'll support. This is not correct. Ships with no aggression timer will disappear after 30 sec. If they have aggression (i.e. have engaged a gate, station, can, other player with an offensive module and such) they have a 15 min timer before they disappear. And with the new probing mechanics it is impossible to catch them before they are gone as they will not be under the 15 min aggression timer. (if I read the OP correct. We are talking Ratters farming safe ISK in 0.0, Yes? ) I agree with the OP. The CovOps cloak and ships that can fit those have got a role. But when every ship can fit a cloak and become invulnerable, that is just wrong IMO. Some sort of penalty should be applied to using a cloak that brings the "risk" aspect into it. Not just the "reward". An agility penalty perhaps?? A "delayed warp out" mechanic?? At least something that makes ship using a prototype cloaking device have to take some risk. We are talking about 0.0 space after all. And it is not supposed to be safe. I would also like it if cloaking ships using a regular cloaking devices (non-covert ops cloaks)can be probed out and caught with a well skilled character. It shouldn't be easy, but it should be possible IMO. And don't get me started about the macro/bot players
Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.03.28 00:30:00 - [4] Cloaks are already balanced and fitting one comes with penalties - no change is needed. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic
remac	Posted - 2009.03.28 01:00:00 - [5] Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri Cloaks are already balanced and fitting one comes with penalties - no change is needed. And what penalty would that be?? The scan res penalty and activation delay?? Doesn't address the problem. And they can hardly be called balanced when they make ppl invulnerable.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.03.28 01:50:00 - [6] As I told the last million threads on this subject....no. Unless CCP changes how cloaking and all related mechanics to cloaking, there is no change needed. --Isaac P.S. No reason needed because I stated it a million times. You have no real solution. Your demanding CCP change the problem, but you have no suggestions. This isn't the "QQ this mechanic sucks" forum. Its the bring your suggestions here forum. Isaac's Haul*Mart
Zostera Honour Bound Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.03.28 11:46:00 - [7] I agree that cloaked ships invulnerability really is a pain. Trying to catch a ratter with a cloak is pretty much pointless any more, and searching for a red in local with a cloak is simply a waste of time. The principal of extended cloaking should be limited to specific ships, and while others may use them it should be heaily limited in use. Perhaps introduce a cap usage on activation, this would be a drain of a fixed percent rather than an actual amount. The rational being that a larger ship requires more energy to remain cloaked, so perhaps an activation cost of something like 10 percent. If for the sake of argument the duration is 1 minute, then any ship using a prototype can remain cloaked for 10 minutes max. Long enough to take a bio, however not long enough to simply wait out a searching fleet. I see this as a dynamic that would nerf titans in some way too, requiring them to be more often visible on grid, and therefore open to attack or at least their position and alignment known. Users of Cov-ops cloaks would have zero activation cost, and therefore operate as before. Zos
Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.03.28 14:03:00 - [8] Originally by: remac Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri Cloaks are already balanced and fitting one comes with penalties - no change is needed. And what penalty would that be?? The scan res penalty and activation delay?? Doesn't address the problem. And they can hardly be called balanced when they make ppl invulnerable. A non-covert ship with a cloak can barely move, can't warp,and can't attack. During the times the ship is "invulnerable" every other ship in the system is also invulerable to the cloaked ship (balance achieved). If the cloaker de-cloaks there is a delay before they can lock and they have weakened the combat ability of the ship by attaching the cloak that takes significant CPU and a high slot. Simple test: Take any two identical combat ships and two identical pilots. Put a cloak on one of the ships. Fit them with the best possible PVP fit with the exception of the cloak. Have the cloaker de-cloak next to the other ship and attack. Due to the delay in firing and the sacrifice of the CPU and high-slot the ship with the cloak will most likely explode. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic
glitterbomb tr0pa de elite	Posted - 2009.03.28 14:31:00 - [9] Eve-online would be a better game without local and without non-covert op cloaking devices. it would end the isk farming problem.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2009.03.28 14:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri Originally by: remac Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri Cloaks are already balanced and fitting one comes with penalties - no change is needed. And what penalty would that be?? The scan res penalty and activation delay?? Doesn't address the problem. And they can hardly be called balanced when they make ppl invulnerable. A non-covert ship with a cloak can barely move, can't warp,and can't attack. During the times the ship is "invulnerable" every other ship in the system is also invulerable to the cloaked ship (balance achieved). If the cloaker de-cloaks there is a delay before they can lock and they have weakened the combat ability of the ship by attaching the cloak that takes significant CPU and a high slot. Simple test: Take any two identical combat ships and two identical pilots. Put a cloak on one of the ships. Fit them with the best possible PVP fit with the exception of the cloak. Have the cloaker de-cloak next to the other ship and attack. Due to the delay in firing and the sacrifice of the CPU and high-slot the ship with the cloak will most likely explode. Listen to this man.... or forever be labeled dumb. Spot on... ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================

Kiithnaras Minmatar Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2009.03.29 21:34:00 - [11] /signed for the counter-argument Cloaking is a balanced mechanic as it exists in the game. You can't find them, but they can't harm you. And if they try to harm you, they're doomed. The exception of course, being stealth-role ships, since that is their purpose, to hide and lie in wait and ambush. But compared to similar ships, they're still weaker combat-wise. Yes, cloaked ships are impossible to scan down. The cloaking device bends all electromagnetic radiation around it seamlessly, rendering it invisible to any form of detection. While it is cloaked, its sensors are offline as well, so it is not emitting anything that a probe would pick up on since it is far too small to register passively on magnetometric and gravimetric sensors.
Revlam	Posted - 2009.03.30 07:21:00 - [12] Edited by: Revlam on 30/03/2009 07:27:45 Edited by: Revlam on 30/03/2009 07:27:20 Originally by: Drake Draconis ... Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri ... Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri ... Originally by: Kiithnaras ... You have nothing new to add to the discussion. You have not read or understood what we are trying to say.. You are just copy/pasting from other cloak related issues and think you have come up with a smart reply. What you are adressing is not, I repeat, Is NOT the issue here. Please read again, think, think some more, use your imagination to understand what the OP is actually saying. Then reply.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.30 09:09:00 - [13] Cloak is called cloak for a reason. Works as intended, no issue here. Macro miners are a problem which every MMO has. Changing a game mechanic to aim at macro miners will aim at legit players in general aswell. We just have to live with macro miners or, better, hunt them down (yes, it is possible). Sorry, no easy free carebear kills for you. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.03.30 10:31:00 - [14] Originally by: Revlam Edited by: Revlam on 30/03/2009 07:49:47 Originally by: Drake Draconis ... Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri ... Originally by: Kiithnaras ... You have nothing new to add to the discussion. You have not read or understood what we are trying to say.. You are just copy/pasting from other cloak related issues and think you have come up with a smart reply. What you are adressing is not, I repeat, Is NOT the issue here. Please read again, think, think some more, use your imagination to understand what the OP is actually saying. Then reply. Ah! I see now. It's an arguement so strong and so pursuasive that facts have nothing to do with it... only our imaginations can unlock the wisdom of this idea. I'll try hard to imagine a world where this is a good idea, I really will! ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.