EVE Search - Candidates: What is your take on the imminent mwd/cloak nerf?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Candidates: What is your take on the imminent mwd/cloak nerf?

» 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)
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.05.11 08:55:00 - [1] Edited by: Amy Wang on 11/05/2009 09:01:56 This is quite a hot topic for every small gang/solo pvper I talked to, so here is your opportunity to score some extra votes by showing your support ;) In case you don't know what I am talking about here are some threads about the issue and why it is a bad idea: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1067244 http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=25936&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 The tl;dr version (although as CSM canditaes I seriously would expect you to take the time to read up on the issue in some detail): issue: on SiSi activating a cloak shuts down the mwd like a warp scrambler does (on TQ it would finish the cycle before shutting down) effect: while this somewhat fixes the problem of instant-warping ships in low sec, in 0.0 space this "fix" would (again) strengthen the position of gatecamps and "blobs" while (again) making small/solo/skirmish gang warfare against established and numerically superior opponent much more unfeasible
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:35:00 - [2] I constantly use this trick. I'd hate to see it go away
Lady Karma	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:54:00 - [3] Originally by: Amy Wang effect: while this somewhat fixes the problem of instant-warping ships in low sec, in 0.0 space this "fix" would (again) strengthen the position of gatecamps and "blobs" while (again) making small/solo/skirmish gang warfare against established and numerically superior opponent much more unfeasible I disagree with your assumptions. Skirmish gangs do not normally fit cloaks, interceptors are used to scout gate camps, not mwd align cloaking badgers.
Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.05.11 14:22:00 - [4] I've camped a lot of gates in my time and cursed those who use this trick... I've also used it to get past many a gatecamp. I feel it's a pretty lame tactic (doesn't stop me using it) and is probably not intended but I will be very sad to see it go. As a previous person mentioned it won't hurt combat gangs, mainly ratters, haulers, etc etc... It will hurt recons and covops who find themselves caught short in a bubble.
Katherine Cole	Posted - 2009.05.11 14:30:00 - [5] Originally by: Lady Karma /quote] I disagree with your assumptions. Skirmish gangs do not normally fit cloaks, interceptors are used to scout gate camps, not mwd align cloaking badgers. That has come up in the other treads linked above and sufficiently answered there as well but since you apparently haven't read those I'm gonna humor you anyway: An Inty might still be able to survive a camp (or get instapopped, happens frequently also), true. But I have to disagree with your other assessment, roaming gangs do indeed fit cloaks, not only on their recons and bombers (which is kinda their trademark so it would be silly not to fit cloaks on them) but also on hacs (for which you pay a price with the scan resolution and lock delay penalties which is balancing it out). They do that to be able to survive gatecamps better and be able to avoid getting scanned out and killed when they inevitably get boxed in by a fleet 10times their size. So, are you saying an inty should be the only ship able to (maybe) survive jumping into a camp but Recons, covert ops, bombers, blockade runners and the like should just die in every competent camp they come along? It even makes the recently buffed Black Ops a joke as how is your covert cyno ship supposed to infiltrate hostile territory if it just gets killed in any camp it comes along on the way? It is this kind of catering to blobs, territorial powers and gatecamps that has made Eve a less fun experience for everyone not into that kind of stuff like people trying to fight while outnumbered behind enemy lines etc and we certainly do not need another nail in that coffin.
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.05.11 16:57:00 - [6] As a non-territorial small gang PVPer myself I have seen this "trick" being used on numerous occasions and I am in two minds about it being dealt with as it is by CCP. In regards to it's effectiveness at evading gate camps in 0.0 a well setup gate camp SHOULD be able in most cases to de-cloak and destroy most ships coming through it with the possible exception of Cov Ops ships even if they do use this trick. Attempting to go through a gatecamp into 0.0 is already a tough challenge for most small outfits unless very specific ships are used. In regards to using a cloak on HACs yes I have seen it done and I don't really find it provides enough of a boost to escape a Gatecamp setup in 0.0 anyway and this change should not effect their ability to hide when they they need to when already in a system. So from a 0.0 perspective it will negatively effect the ability of a few ships to enter a heavily camped 0.0 system. However it must be said that for every system that IS camped right now there is usually a way past all but the most core systems of someone's territory. Additionally to this I feel the change will have an effect on a minority of ships as the vast percentage of ships that could use this trick on a properly setup gatecamp is minimal. Certainly a HAC shouldn't be able to get past a well setup 0.0 camp with or without this trick currently. In regards to low sec there are currently many things that need to be looked at as it is simply too easy to avoid fights at the moment. The agility of ships is far too high allowing ships to escape combat whenever they wish. To given an example I was on a gate with my corp mate today who was in a Triple Sensor Boosted Phobos. With the current level of agility of ships we had a Dominix get past us because he wasn't able to lock it in time! I mean obviously the Dominix was setup to do just that but when a Battleship can align and warp before somethign with nearly 1000 scan res can lock it there is something wrong. The Cloak/MWD trick is just another example of how low risk empire fighting has become. Indeed right now there is few ways to force an engagement from an enemy if they do not want it. Whilst I am sure that appeals to many in Eve it does strike me as contradictory to the cold dark universe CCP have stated New Eden is meant to be. Whilst it could be said that this change will effect the small gang 0.0 pilot I do not honestly believe it will be a HUGE change from the status quo for the majority of them. The big hit will be against the solo ratters and industrial pilots who fly around 0.0. Without wishing to push voters away on the eve of election it is about time that vunerable ships were escorted in so called dangerous space anyway But looking at it where does most combat in Eve take place? A cursory glance at the map on any day will normally show a vast amount more ship kills in Empire than in 0.0. Given the additional difficultly of forcing a fight in empire it would seem to me that the majority of combat simply must happen in Empire. As a result bring a change that will being Eve closer to the ideal that CCP want for Eve would seem to be the way forward. For the minority of pilots in 0.0 that this will effect it will be another challenge to be overcome but not a great one as little will actually change for the majority. ---
Mira O'karr Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.05.12 09:40:00 - [7] Edited by: Mira O''karr on 12/05/2009 09:45:33 could the csm candidates please also state what they think should be done instead if this tactic gets killed off? since the inception of cloaks (and thus the mwd/cloak trick) remote sensor boosted HICs have been introduced and wcs have become extremely crap and useless anyway .. see hics. the current system is balanced (if you have semi competent decloaker bumper in your lame low sec camp). edit: btw the domi example sounds pretty unlikely. i think he got lucky with the random "you fail to target nothing" locking bug that happens quite often. a full inertiaed domi still needs 5 seconds to get in warp. a 1000 scan res hic should lock it no worries unless you get the locking bug.
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.05.12 19:22:00 - [8] Gatecamping is boring, I don't like giving people more reasons to do it. Also this takes away one of the few ways interdictors have of surviving past one bubble in a fleet fight(besides incredible luck), and i generally don't like having valid tactics taken away from us. VOTE FOR MAZZILLIU FOR '09. VOTE CHANGE. VOTE GIRRRL
Katherine Cole	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:17:00 - [9] apparently the nerf already made it in tomorrows patch: Quote: If a ship cloaks, all active modules that modify attributes, such as ECM, will stop immediately and the icons showing the effect will disappear. nicely disguised but that doesnt change the massive issue that arises for small scale warfare if MWD are still included in this and since it doesnt specifically exclude it like it should I assume it is still affected frankly I am quite disappointed not to say enraged at the complete lack of comments from CCP about the concerns risen by the community
Xennith Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:47:00 - [10] Edited by: Xennith on 13/05/2009 13:47:04 Ive got one vote spare, convince me :)

Rottw Dmugnio	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:08:00 - [11] I just silently hope CCP changes their mind and do not smash their nerfbat into skirmish warfare. If even specialized ships can't bust a camp anymore, what's then the role of a covert ship besides scanning down WHs, plexes and ships in your homesystems?
Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:17:00 - [12] Originally by: Heartstone So from a 0.0 perspective it will negatively effect the ability of a few ships to enter a heavily camped 0.0 system. However it must be said that for every system that IS camped right now there is usually a way past all but the most core systems of someone's territory. Additionally to this I feel the change will have an effect on a minority of ships as the vast percentage of ships that could use this trick on a properly setup gatecamp is minimal. Certainly a HAC shouldn't be able to get past a well setup 0.0 camp with or without this trick currently. Unfortunatly the 'few' ships which are affected include those which NEED to be able to get through gate camps. Two examples: * Scouts can only do their job if they can get out of a gate-camp and find an alternative route. * Covert cynos can only be lit if a cloaky ship makes it into a heavily camped system. *Let My People Go*
Thorvik Valklear Guard Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:30:00 - [13] Edited by: Thorvik on 13/05/2009 15:31:15 This will affect us in a big way. Running into a gate camp with a Cov Ops frigate or Stealth Bomber you will die. There is no tank to speak of on either ship and the only "tank" that they do have is a mixture of the Cov Ops and pilot skill. I agree that a Domi shouldn't be able to escape in a situation as mentioned by Heartstone but I disagree with the full Cov Ops nerf. Perhaps make it specific to ships so that only ships that can fit a Cov Ops Cloak still have some chance of escaping. Blobs and gate camps exist but will now become more the norm and the small gang and solo pvp will become a thing of the past. This is not a good thing for anyone Linkage
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Poreuomai Unfortunatly the 'few' ships which are affected include those which NEED to be able to get through gate camps. Two examples: * Scouts can only do their job if they can get out of a gate-camp and find an alternative route. * Covert cynos can only be lit if a cloaky ship makes it into a heavily camped system. I agree with you entirely Poreumai. What I said above was not to say that this change will not have a negative effect on the role of these ships but to point out the idea that it is nerfing all ships across the board isn't accurate. I think that these ships will indeed suffer quite badly from the mwd/cloak change and these ships are very disadvantaged by this change. To me the only answer in the current expected mechanics seems to be that you must infiltrate these ships via a different route or find an alternate route. In general whilst this isn't a major boost for the Space Holding Entities it DOES boost the effectiveness of well setup 0.0 gatecamps and gives the defender a further advantage which isn't something they really need given the current state of sov. mechanics. The current aim of the mechanical changes in tomorrow's patch seem to me to aimed towards creating more non-consensual combat between pilots as it also includes the agility changes as well as this change. The question to be asked of CCP is whether this boost to non-consensual PVP should be to the advantage of one pvp style over another. Personally I think the change is welcome but something should have been done to mitigate the effects of this on ships expressly designed for infiltration. Maybe to make it so the change only effects non cov-ops cloaks. ---
Conlin Gallente Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.13 17:52:00 - [15] Quite simply it will kill off a huge part of the game for smaller & those in larger alliances with the balls to go out and roam . It will stop ppl using a part of pvp that some people have no understanding of . Hacs/recons market will suffer as less & less people will want to roam . WoW suffered when devs who played the game decided on what they wished the game to be , is this another case of a Dev who likes to carebear in peace ?. Everything about this game is centred towards the defender who holds sov , the one thing left for us skirmish warfare alliances who wish to attack the larger stronger alliances is going to be removed . I,II certainly be looking elsewhere for my online gameing . CCp want to play the ignorance game and refuse to give a reason for this stupidity ? Fine by me , I'II simply walk , along with the rest of us who love the challenge of pvpin in hostile territory , outnumbered and outgunned , but then this patch is about the carebear . Like every other patch these days . Your about to shoot yourself in the foot this time round CCP .
Molten Black Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.13 18:04:00 - [16] Edited by: Molten Black on 13/05/2009 18:05:13 I still have not voted in the CSM elections. So far It seems I won't be voting at all. Originally by: Xennith Ive got one vote spare, convince me :)[/quote This tbh ^^
Shatana Fulfairas Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.05.13 20:25:00 - [17] I will say this on my part:- This nerf has it good and bad point imho. To look at it in a whole its immedatly obvious the it seem to be a alteration for the single pvp player to go about it alone it is making it alot harder Quote: Unfortunatly the 'few' ships which are affected include those which NEED to be able to get through gate camps. Two examples: * Scouts can only do their job if they can get out of a gate-camp and find an alternative route. * Covert cynos can only be lit if a cloaky ship makes it into a heavily camped system. This i do agree with tbh in the whole sence of the word We need our Scouts and if we want to get our ships who are able to use the covert cyno.. how can they if the cloaked cyno ship can make it through.. again this is showing favor to numbers versus Skills in pvp I think We need to keep in the single player hunt as well as having benefits for large numbered gangs... CCP's goal seems to venture on benefits for SOV holders in systems rather than give the little guy a chance to make his way. I am still not 100% on what it means for my char in the game i guess i will have to wait to see how the patch effects my ships personaly
Neu Bastian Minmatar Valklear Guard	Posted - 2009.05.14 00:26:00 - [18] Stop Killing small gang pvp. PS: is the guy who came up with this in a Providence holding alliance? This is like hitting U'K with a bat in the ballz. Quote: Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
Jkol0 COGNET SpaceSystems Ltd Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.14 01:34:00 - [19] Edited by: Jkol0 on 14/05/2009 01:36:52 they don't care anymore for the pvpers, only the huge blob WTF warfare, that involves no skill whatsoever. I can command a fleet of 1000 people too, just call a name and ur good, ur better if u know the shiptypes and know which ones pose a bigger threat, but all in all its easy. Small gang warfare, now thats an art, sure you will still have someone calling primaries, but in the end the individual players make decisions too while the fighting is going on, like say for instance, a falcon decloaks within drone range, if the FC didn't see it but the rest of the gang did, then they will set their drones or change primary when needed, sounds simple right? WRONG!, CAREBEARS ARE TOO STUPID TO THINK!!! thats why they love large fleets where there is someone CALLING targets for them. Now that i went off topic and explained why small gang warfare is that much better, if the cloaks are nerfed, forget small gang warfare. For those of you that say it will not eliminate small gang warfare, BULL**, you my friend have too much money and time on ur hands to have a thousand alts scouting you through your intended target region/area. I myself CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET ANOTHER F#%$ING ALT TO FEED CCP THEIR MONEY. They get enough of it as it is. No nerf is required for the cloaks, plain and simple, no mwd/cloak tactic, no small gang warfare. Ofcourse, in traditional CCP style, they will ignore the PvPers and continue on with their nerf for carebaers. As ive said in another thread, this continues i may quit the game and ccp will be gettin a nice post from me PS: wow is blocked, this world is going to down the drain when a non-vulgar world like is blocked, i mean **, wtf? :P
Dirrke Undren Minmatar Universal Army Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.14 02:11:00 - [20] Edited by: Dirrke Undren on 14/05/2009 02:11:44 Could a representative from CCP or the CSM please address the reasons behind the cloaking change? I do not personally support the change for several reasons already echoed in this thread. That said, I would like to make an informed decision based upon information from both sides. With nothing in forum or publicly available to review that is not possible. Regards ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Bunyip Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.05.17 04:41:00 - [21] Originally by: Dirrke Undren Could a representative from CCP or the CSM please address the reasons behind the cloaking change? AFAIK, they were trying to stop Falcons from ECM/Cloak tactics. They decided to apply it across the board to prevent any future loopholes around it, but didn't have the foresight to see what this would do to people trying to run a gatecamp in 0.0. They're reverting the change as we speak. "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Weazy Z Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.05.17 06:41:00 - [22] I didnt really see this mechanic as broken (mwd cloak) but jam->cloak certainly was. The nerf to cov ops certainly sucked but I'm glad they fixed (nerfed) falcons some more. /emote never gets tired of seeing falcons nerfed Please resize your sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 - Mitnal


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.