Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yue Rubens
Fnord Works Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 15:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Yue Rubens on 15/06/2009 15:43:05 As I've found only 2 threads on this, one locked for inactivity the other only concerned with regular, not covops cloak devices, I decided to post a new topic.
I propose the introduction of a basic 0.5% chance per scan to hit a cloaked signature. Also introduce the following skill:
---------------------- Name: Spatial Distortion Tracking (8)
Prequisites: Astrometrics 5, Astrometric Pinpointing 5, Astrometric Rangefinding 4, Astrometric Acquisition 4
Description: Advanced knowledge of scanning techniques allows the pilot to increase the chance of exploiting small spatial interferences caused by light deflection fields. Adds 0.5% per level to the chance of finding cloaked signatures in space, for a total of 3% per scan at level 5.
------------------------------------------------
Why this would make eve a better place:
- CCP can't efficiently counter 0.0 macro ratters, we all understand that. Let us space holders deal with the problem, give us a minimal chance of killing them cloak ravens ourselves!
- Stealth bomber buff was nice, but THERE USED TO BE A REASON there was no down-to-combat force recon ship. Rapiers and Arazus don't deal alot of damage, and that was nicely balanced. SB's can kill battleships solo and warp cloaked? Fine. At least give us some way to probe them down if they stay in our systems cloaked instead of hours and hours of baiting games.
- The very low chance of finding per scan would make it immensely difficult to probe down a non-afk cloaker before he changes spots! This would require teamwork from multiple scanners and a lot of luck. Not overpowered no need to whine in my honest opinion.
- Reward near maxed out scanners after the need of scanskills was nerfed so bad in apocrypha anyone can find sigs with astrometrics 1!
*supporting my own thread* Spread the word, gather support plz. Cloak is too powerful.
Yue
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 15:53:00 -
[2]
Not supported. Not everyone who uses a cloak is a macro ratter. Cloaks are already balanced. |
Castie2
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 15:53:00 -
[3]
Makes complete sense. Two thumbs up from me |
Resender
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:02:00 -
[4]
I semi support this
Cloak is good and balanced but with the recent changes to the stealth bomber most of them have started psychological warfare by their new ability.
I would suggest the following changes to Yue's idea. *Change the working of cloaks on stealth bombers, give them a higher change of getting scanned down while cloaked *Give us a mod or ship that can scan for cloaked ships that works in sort of mix of the directional & scanner probe system (Allow to see the angel your scanning on the map)This way teamwork is encouraged and stealth bombers have to be sneakier to try and hit something + they will will be occupied more zipping around then choosing targets. *Change the mobile warp disrupt bubble so that it has a 30 - 40 % change of uncloaking stealth bombers
|
Kayron Zaebos
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:15:00 -
[5]
I really like that proposal! These cloaking ISK-farmers in our territory drive me crazy. I¦ve spent hours trying to catch them, but it¦s nearly impossible. Or even in war times, cloaked alt chars from the enemy on a safe spot in local 23/7 are untouchable.
Give us Scannings experts a chance to get those ships. Increase scan-time, make it harder to trigger. Even a new probe launcher with new probes would be fine :)
100% supported Yue!
kay |
Syringe
Oedipus Complex
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:20:00 -
[6]
/not supported
Cloaks work well enough. If you're having problems with macro ratters, camp them. Either they'll leave after not getting anything accomplished or they'll explode. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 16:47:00 -
[7]
Probability-based scanning sucked, because it meant you had to sit there forever, not knowing if you were scanning the right bit of space, waiting for your snake eyes to come up. I do not want to see it return. Cloaking is fine in most contexts, and there are better ways to introduce balance when it's not fine. Not supported. |
Kaylan Jahlar
Minmatar Minmatar Industrial Limited
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:52:00 -
[8]
I'm quite opposed to the following feature suggestion. Not only would this make covert ops and stealth bombers useless, but it would also make cloaking devices altogether pretty much useless.
The only purpose of cloaking devices is to be able to be invisible to other players. Invisible to the naked eye, to the directional scanner and to probes.
The only thing I could see being done about cloaking devices is to prevent the module from being used on ships larger than a certain size. For example, it's inconceivable that ships as big as capital ships and freighters can use cloaking devices. I would be in favor of only allowing specialized ships (covert ops cloaking device) or ships below a certain size to use cloaking devices, but not to have a way to scan cloaking fields.
|
Oam Mkoll
Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 17:59:00 -
[9]
No way. Cloaking is there for a reason. Fitting (and in most cases also using) a cloak incurs penalties: speed, CPU, scan resolution, lock time etc.
Cloaking is fine. Inactivity (or rather permanent activity) is a viable tactic. |
Resender
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:42:00 -
[10]
Tactics are only valid if you can defend against them Psychological warfare with the stealth bombers is the ultimate weapon in EVE and should there for get a counter measure
How can it be fair that 1 single person can disrupt an entire system by just sitting in a safe spot cloaked afk, if their is no way to find that person |
|
Yahrr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:20:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Yue Rubens Rapiers and Arazus don't deal alot of damage, and that was nicely balanced. SB's can kill battleships solo and warp cloaked? Fine. At least give us some way to probe them down if they stay in our systems cloaked instead of hours and hours of baiting games.
Recons don't do dps and anyone using them for dps should reconsider if it would be a smart move to train for HACs. This is why the recons have a new family member now: the bomber. Paper-thin, slow aligning and massive dps that has to be dealt from within the target's drone range. If you read up the infos on recons it will tell you that they are meant for infiltration of enemy systems.
I would support some nerf to normal cloaks on normal ships (the module name "prototype" says it all).Someone in one of the other nerf-cloaking-until-ships-are-broken-again threads said something like scanning for the small heat signature around ships. It sounds to me like if a given uncloaked ship has a scan strenght of 100% then a cloaked one has 5%. So get your maxed scanner alt with it's sisters hardware and go scanning for the next hour. Just DON'T touch ships that are build to cloak!
|
Yue Rubens
Fnord Works Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Yahrr
This is why the recons have a new family member now: the bomber. Paper-thin, slow aligning and massive dps that has to be dealt from within the target's drone range.
Wrong.
Cloak in system, wait. Wait. Get in position behind hulk and in line with safespot. Fire bomb, gtfo.
Result? Instapop hulk, instapop hauler, disrupted system of 20 peeps by one single person with no way to counter it.
|
Yue Rubens
Fnord Works Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:45:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Yue Rubens on 15/06/2009 22:45:34 Sorry for double post.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:51:00 -
[14]
Not supported...
Stop coming up with excuses for your failure to nail down a cloaked ship.
There are many ways to stop them... you just need to learn how.
COV OP's cloaks are harder granted... but they aren't immune either. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Yahrr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 02:01:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Yue Rubens Wrong.
I'm not used to 0.0 stuff. No bombs for me in low sec. Why my statement is proven wrong by your reason I cannot understand as you talk about how you can solo in a bomber but quoted something totally different.
Anyway let's get back on topic...
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 14:45:00 -
[16]
There's nothing wrong with covert ops cloaks the way they are.
I'd be all for allowing standard cloaks to be probed out with specialist training and equipment, but not covert ops cloaks. It takes long enough to train the skills to use the ships effectively, the payoff for that investment is the ability to conceal yourself.
|
Alun Hughes
United Amarr Templar Legion Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 19:36:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Alun Hughes on 16/06/2009 19:40:53
Quote: I'd be all for allowing standard cloaks to be probed out with specialist training and equipment, but not covert ops cloaks. It takes long enough to train the skills to use the ships effectively, the payoff for that investment is the ability to conceal yourself
What its was a specific module that merely extended the uncloak range form 2000m to something else say 50k. Make is highly skill intensive to be effective(Matching the Co-ops skill ) and allow it to be fit to EWAR ships. This was if you have a hidy cloaker you can sweep your systems for them. Although 50k might be a little much as it would make take the gate camp escape advantage away.
Or a grid wide pulse that would decloke a ship for a mille second so that you could at least work your way towards them this pulse module could also be a pos mod maybe?
Just suggestions it would add an interesting dynamic if cloakers werenĘt completely safe. I mean no one else is when you guys are around :P
|
arbiter reformed
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 19:39:00 -
[18]
i dont like this idea. cloak fuel is a better one
|
Alun Hughes
United Amarr Templar Legion Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 19:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: arbiter reformed i dont like this idea. cloak fuel is a better one
This also is a pretty good idea
|
Verys
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 21:31:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Alun Hughes
Originally by: arbiter reformed i dont like this idea. cloak fuel is a better one
This also is a pretty good idea
Could potentially stop an entire 0.0 macro game. However this would probably mean more macro's in lvl 4 hubs.
To the OP, no... no... no... i don't need to say more.
|
|
Do Won
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 10:07:00 -
[21]
Some mechanism would be good, and I fly cloaked ships so it'd hurt me a bit, but I'm in favour of something.
IMHO hanging around stationary cloaked for hours should not be a safe thing to do.
I don't think the the %age chance thing is in keeping with the new scanning in eve; so how about this...
A combination of a new type of scan probe to get within 500km of a cloaked ship using present scanning, and them a module that improves the direction scan to be able to find cloaked ships (difficult to fit except perhaps in limited t2 ships like a combat recon, t2 destroyer or something).
So typical scenario would be ship warps off and cloaks, adversary scans down, but 'signature' is a large sphere. Warping to signature puts you within 500km of ship then you need to use directional scan to find and uncloak it. If you're in a ship with a normal cloak then you'll have to keep an eye on your directional scan for scan probes and uncloak and warp before they warp in or risk being tracked down. Covert ops ships can warp cloaked so can warp if they see someone arrive.
Adds to the cat and mouse game, allows the lazy who warp off and cloak to be tracked down, however people who are alert should be as safe as they are at the moment.
|
Micia
Minmatar Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 10:17:00 -
[22]
Not supporting scanning of cloaked vessels (regardless of size).
Fuel requirements for cloaks I would get behind, though. Been wanting that for years. |
Piitaq
19th Star Logistics
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 00:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Resender Tactics are only valid if you can defend against them Psychological warfare with the stealth bombers is the ultimate weapon in EVE and should there for get a counter measure
How can it be fair that 1 single person can disrupt an entire system by just sitting in a safe spot cloaked afk, if their is no way to find that person
This ^^
I dont know if idea about a special skill, is the correct solution. But something definately needs to be done to address this.
Everyone should be able to loose their ship, when they undock.
Also everything else in EVE needs player interaction, AFK cloackers can sit 23 hours a day in a system, without risking their ship. And the worst part is you cant kill a cloacker, if he wont decloack. Not even if you had a thousand players in system, camping, probing and flying all over the place. With every ship, module and item available in game. How is this fair or balanced?
|
jemos
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 01:26:00 -
[24]
Quote:
What its was a specific module that merely extended the uncloak range form 2000m to something else say 50k.
You just made me fall off my chair here. Ok, lets do some maths here!
2D 2000M = (r^2*pi) = 12566370 SQUARE meters. 3D 2000m = (4*pi/3)r^3 = 33510321638 CUBIC meters.
2D 500000m = (r^2*pi) = 7853981633 SQUARE meters. 7853981633/12566370 = 625. It's 625 times larger field, not 25 times! 3D 50000m = 523598775598298 CUBIC meters 523598775598298/33510321638 = 15625. That's 15625 times larger field than what the normal is.
Conclusion, that would be rather stupid way of declcloaking thing (just imagine that thing on an Interceptor)
However I semi support this IdTa. On "normal" non covert operations/recon ships the cloak should be semi scannable (not to mention cloaked titans). This change would accually make afk'ing in a non specialised ship a hazard since tenacious scanner would find you sooner or later unless you relocate evry now and then.
But being able to scan out dedicated cloak ships (even black ops) should be excluded. They are cloakers for a good reason, Sb's ain't that good without an escort.
|
Oam Mkoll
Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 06:24:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Resender Tactics are only valid if you can defend against them Psychological warfare with the stealth bombers is the ultimate weapon in EVE and should there for get a counter measure
How can it be fair that 1 single person can disrupt an entire system by just sitting in a safe spot cloaked afk, if their is no way to find that person
Sorry but this is just bull. Neither a single SB nor a Recon can kill a lot on their own. Even decloaked, those ships also have huge disadvantages over non-cloakers. A Black Ops may be dangerous but heh, so can any other BS with a cloak fitted, sitting in a safespot.
Psychological warfare (as in: making you too afraid to undock) is a tactic, not a weapon. There are easy counters to this, beginning with "don't fly alone". And yes, this is fair as there are many situations in EVE where there's no solo counter to something. ---
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr Corp 1 Allstars
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 06:37:00 -
[26]
Getting tired of being ganked by our stealth bombers?
The downside to stealth bombers is *drumroll* They're frigates. Use correct drones, and you won't get ganked. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Zenhexzen
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 08:31:00 -
[27]
Not supported, totally would mess up the stealth bomber after it just got fixed.
|
Gun Gal
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 08:46:00 -
[28]
totally support fuel for cloaks.
maybe one day CCP will realize having 2 day old scouts perma logged in every system is a stupid thing.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 09:33:00 -
[29]
not supported
|
Rizr
Dawn of Fire Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 10:11:00 -
[30]
Not supported, I would rather see cap or fuel usage per cycle or something.. Probably cap as that feels more balanced, but to help counter the bigger ships with cloaks on I would think that the cap usage is relative to the size of the ships radius.
e.g. A covert op gets bonus so uses almost no cap, a battleship has big sig radius so to cloak it means the cloak has to work harder and use more cap.
---------- -- Rizr -- ---------- |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |