| 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 --
---------- |
|
|
Wacktopia
Infinity Miners Union
Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 13:03:00 -
[31]
No support. Cloaking is an important game mechanic and works well as it is. Making it possible to scan for cloaked ships is the wrong way to go about it.
Titan pilots need a way of going afk (e.g to sleep) without the risk of it being probed and destroyed while the pilot is away and unable to fight back.
If you're worried about one SB disrupting a whole system then you need more buddies in system with anti-SB ships.
|
Poreuomai
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 12:06:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Poreuomai on 28/07/2009 12:06:28
Cloaky ships are far from invulnerable:
http://www.ushrakhan.com/alliance/edk/?&scl_id=16
---
Let My People Go |
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 12:35:00 -
[33]
Standard cloaks = I would support, but covert op cloacks should stay as they are.
|
Laxyr
Chamsin Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:03:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Laxyr on 28/07/2009 13:03:10
Conventional Cloaks AND cov ops cloack should be scannable.. although it should take a considerable amount of time for the last one.
Let me tell you why. It's become a fairly regular "tactic" in 0.0 to take a bunch of recon ships/bombers, move to a hostile system and stay there 'till judgement day.
You can do nothing about a red recon gang sitting in your backyard that's only 3 hours active per day and afk for the rest.
Even if it takes half an hour to do it --> cov ops cloaks should be scannable.
CCP promised us 2 or 3 years ago that they would make non-cov ops ships, that are using a cloaking device, scannable..... so either it is hard to implement or they quickly disregarded that idea..
|
Kaylan Jahlar
Minmatar Industrial Limited
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 13:38:00 -
[35]
Funny how PvPers and pirates bash on carebears the second they want some aspect of PvP nerfed, but that they are the biggest whiners when something affects their own little world. 
I'll say what you keep telling carebears when they whine about anything: Learn how to live with it! There's no such thing as free lunch!
----
Advanced combat probing guide: A clever use of the directional scanner |
Kiri Serrensun
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 14:38:00 -
[36]
Just so you know, nobody believes you when you say you want this to valiantly fight the evil macro zombies. Not supported.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 14:50:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kaylan Jahlar
Funny how PvPers and pirates bash on carebears the second they want some aspect of PvP nerfed, but that they are the biggest whiners when something affects their own little world.
I'll say what you keep telling carebears when they whine about anything: Learn how to live with it! There's no such thing as free lunch!
this
/thread
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
=========================
Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense
Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Orb Lati
Minmatar
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 01:37:00 -
[38]
/not supported
I would prefer that cloaks just required some form of fuel (or used / gimped cap regen)
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 23:36:00 -
[39]
Not supported.
A cloaked ship cannot do much except look around - and that's assuming a covops. All non-covops cloaked ships cannot do anything.
Most of the desire to "fix" cloaking like this comes from people who just HAVE TO HAVE that killmail, the sort that will camp a station for days waiting for someone to undock. A cloaked ship in "their" system makes them go into Jan Brady mode and it's the easiest form of griefing this type, to be cloaked and just sit there.
The better way is to remove local, so they won't know anything is there at all. That will help them.
Of course it might seem like it makes things worse to leave cloaking alone and get rid of local, but then, the Jan Bradys and killmail addicts may actually experience the same feeling that everybody they target is already feeling. And that would be a good thing.
Leave cloaking alone, get rid of local.
And if that's not good, then don't undock.
|
Mashashige
Minmatar
Eternal Perseverance Flight School
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 12:47:00 -
[40]
Not supported.
I know the feeling of having coverts hiding in your system, and not being able to do anything about it - but ****ing up with cloaks mechanics is just not the solution. There are the ingame, and utterly annoying/bpring options of constant bubble gatecamps/baiting/constant home def fleet ready for action/ ignoring the reds - it might suck balls, but you can combat the cloakers.
What I would agree on, is when 0.0 finally goes delayed local (if it ever happens), you could have POS scanning arrays that locate cloakers with a 10min cooldown or some such mechanics. But until then, just learn to deal with cloakers.
=======================================
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." |
|
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 12:59:00 -
[41]
Cloak is its own counter.
How many times do nerf cloak threads have to be kicked into touch before you people get the message
for the 5,000th time NO
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 14:50:00 -
[42]
Remove local, problem solved... hell many problems solved |
Zwielichtseher
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:17:00 -
[43]
I like the idea of "Cloaking-fuel"
So Co***s can become a rolebonus that reducing the fuel amount needet for cloak and stay cloaked (for example 1 "cloakfuel") and other ships like a BS will need a huge amount of fuel (100 "cloakfuel).
So the fuel wouldn¦t take much cargo in cov-ops and SB¦s but much cargo in other not specialized ships like Macroravens.
I realy think this would solve the "cloaker-problem" and wouldnt hit the cov-ops and SB¦s very hard^^
Just my opinion^^
|
AtheistOfDoom
Amarr
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 19:23:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
Not supported. Not everyone who uses a cloak is a macro ratter. Cloaks are already balanced.
this. not supported.
Pew Pew Lazorz!!! |
Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 08:04:00 -
[45]
Not supported Cloaks are Cloaks! and that shouldnt change
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 08:22:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Bobbeh
Not supported Cloaks are Cloaks! and that shouldnt change
This.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 12:08:00 -
[47]
Put null sec into delayed local mode like w-space. Problem solved. I'm a chronic afk cloaker. I don't do it to grief people, I have to do it because everyone docks the instant I enter system. I have to sit there afk for hours for them to think I'm just a scout and come back out before I can attack. Get rid of local and both my and their waiting goes away. I can hurry up and make my attack and regardless of the attack's success everyone can move on faster.
Ultimately this is really an argument over whether or not a single or small gang of attackers should be able to do damage. I say yes. The game should allow terrorism, crime and sabotage. Not every fight need to be a fully consensual 400 vs 400 lag fest. In fact, those are stupid. I fully support putting a hard limit of 10 people per system except for trade hubs.
-----------------------------------------------------
|
VaL Iscariot
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 13:23:00 -
[48]
zzz. this is all a bunch of crap.
1. If your able to scan a cloaked ship then ccp will have to put a station in every system so everyone will have a place to hide if they so choose.
2. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST BE HAPPY THE WAY THINGS ARE!?! If you can't find the bomber, YOU SUCK. If you think one bomber on your turf is the end of the world, you need to find a new game.
Everyone knows what this is about. Keeping people out of low and null sec. If they have no way to hide then they're doomed. More people will end up hiding in empire thus letting the select few absorb all the riches of null. In the end it boils down to isk. Not every person that rat's is a macro. I've made a lot of isk killing rats but as soon as anyone comes to they system i'm in, I hide. I don't have the assets to lose a battleship on a whim and my corp doesn't have the inferstructure to replace it for me.
Leave the cloak alone and stick to greifing hulks. |
Gibbo3771
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 18:51:00 -
[49]
Honesty, wtf would be the purpose on having a cloak if people can find u, its alredi balanced enough, ur speed, scan res and locking range gets gimped. Covert ops cloaks are 10mil a pop and can only be fit to certain ships.
Just coz there's a guy cloaked up u can't kill doesent mean the cloaks are unbalanced.
100% unsupported and would classify this as a whine thread
|
Raukho
Evoke.
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 06:31:00 -
[50]
never it would be another buf to carebears
|
|
|
Xorth Adimus
The Perfect Storm
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 14:17:00 -
[51]
I say this as a pilot who uses cloaks allot on recons/covert ops/ dictors
Ships fitted with cloaks should be eventually probe-able with good skills in covert ops (ONLY) with the probability based on the ships sig radius. T2 cloakers should be harder to find.
If a ship is cloaked and slow/stationary it should then be possible to decloak them and kill them. Sitting AFK in a cloaked large ship should be risky, not lol. Give us the ability to kill macro ratters/miners and solo titans more effectivly for you CCP!
Ships using covert ops cloaks should be harder to find and since they can move at a reasonable speed/ able to warp cloaked very difficult to catch unless cloaked stationary and afk for 2 hours like a muppet. 
I believe this would add more excitement to the game and require more skill with people working together to be safe or indeed find targets. 
|
Nur AlHuda
Amarr
Callide Vulpis
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 22:59:00 -
[52]
supported
|
Borntorule
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:56:00 -
[53]
fuel idea rules!!!! |
Carniflex
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 08:12:00 -
[54]
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 08:21:00 -
[55]
No, cloaking should remain as it is now.
|
Cyrus Doul
Nictus Astartes
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 10:36:00 -
[56]
for you guys who dont like his scanny idea but like fuel idea.
click and thumb here
dun wanna kill your thread really yue but it seemed enough of a difference to merit its own thing.
|
ninjaholic
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 12:01:00 -
[57]
Leave cloaks alone!
>>> SUPPORT EVE's OWN IN-GAME FIGHT RECORD TOOL! <<<
|
Black Sunder
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 15:03:00 -
[58]
Not supported at all. I also do not support the fuel idea.
|
Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 15:42:00 -
[59]
Not supported. If you're too paranoid/inept to rat with a single cloaked afk hostile in system, then that's your problem.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 16:35:00 -
[60]
i logged all the way in cause i had to say NO to this
|
|
|
El Liptonez
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 16:47:00 -
[61]
No support. Delay local if you don't want macros.
|
Oarta
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 17:44:00 -
[62]
Covert Ops Cloaks should not be able to be scanned down. The ships which fit them have their specific roles and the drawback in defense.
However, I support a difficult method of probing down the other types of cloak. It should not be easy, but it should be possible. The strategic value of having intel and causing fear in system by just being present and cloaked is quite valuable. However, the drawbacks of the Non-Covert Ops cloaking devices are not severe enough for the additional combat gain you can have by fielding an invisible gang. This is especially enforced on ships which do not need to actually target like HICs or Interdictors.
Normal Defense would allow for use of choke points, like stations or gates, to spot or tackle Non-Covert Ops ships. This defense is nullified if a player can just stage themselves cloaked in a system.
Increase the risk of detection to balance out the benefits afforded.
|
Hester Shaw
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 18:14:00 -
[63]
Not fussed about high-skills probing of basic cloakers.
However, you should NOT be able to probe down someone using a covert ops cloak. End of story.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 19:42:00 -
[64]
Not supported. Power creep isn't needed.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Sir Muffoon
Debitum Naturae
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 19:50:00 -
[65]
Not supported. This completely destroys the point of being cloaked. |
Lord Aftermath
The Aftermath.
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 20:12:00 -
[66]
Absolutely not.
|
Aniel Zaar
Gallente
Light of Orion
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 22:37:00 -
[67]
Ships using Covert Ops cloak should be able to remain hidden for as long as they please, since scouting is their intended role. Other ships using different cloaks - not sure. Other cloaks already have huge battle drawbacks, I don't think they need to be further nerfed.
*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^*-*^-^
By the way, I am an Ishtar and T2 sentries fan. Fight to make the sentry damage rig work for all drones. |
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 22:43:00 -
[68]
lol. no
|
W3370Pi4
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 05:50:00 -
[69]
_______
Join the "Legit Trading"Channel
*Scam Free Trading Channel* |
Hanster Maluki
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 13:18:00 -
[70]
Not supported!
|
|
|
Czar Vilinous
A Fortiori
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 17:59:00 -
[71]
No support.
This and the fuel idea are bad ideas. |
159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 10:27:00 -
[72]
Maybe for non-specific ships yes, but for those ships who are created to operate "behing enemy lines" ( such as black ops, recons, covert ops and stealth bombers ) I don't think it should work. These could have a special hull to absorb the waves of your scanning device to render them unscannable whilst their cloack is activated. For other ships, sure why not?
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 10:48:00 -
[73]
Originally by: 159Pinky
For other ships, sure why not?
Because those other ships are already incurring massive penalties from the cloak. It's already balanced.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |