Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AFK Cloaker
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 13:21:00 -
[61]
|
jemos
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 18:53:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Kivik 1. WH style local 2. T2 probes that can scan down cloaked ships
I'd hope the skill requirements for those would be sky high. Not only does the ship get rendered invisible from the naked eye. But also from any sensor. This is a bit offtopic, but a sensor that detect cloakers will be quite hard to operate.
Or just amazingly har to find a cloaked ship. If the skill lvl is high, only special pilots will bother train for it. To low and evry casual nullsec player will be able to probe a cloaker!
Originally by: FireT
If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 20:35:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Kivik 1. WH style local
Yes in 0.0, but only after a scanner buff.
Originally by: Kivik 2. T2 probes that can scan down cloaked ships
No.
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
|
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 21:28:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Davina Braben Because they are ****ing bears
|
Aramis Rosicrux
Gallente Crimson Templars
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 22:36:00 -
[65]
I think the smallest change might be the best...
Cloaks eat cap at a rate that makes you run out of cap in about an hour.
Nothing else changes.
Wouldn't this solve the problem?
|
Mag
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 23:30:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Aramis Rosicrux I think the smallest change might be the best...
Cloaks eat cap at a rate that makes you run out of cap in about an hour.
Nothing else changes.
Wouldn't this solve the problem?
Solve what problem?
|
Pater Peccavi
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 00:03:00 -
[67]
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
ZOMG!!!!111 /warps to SS and cloaks til local goes down. ______ Why has the number of players online dropped from 50k to 25k? BECAUSE OF SWINE FLU |
Joe Starbreaker
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 00:05:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Kivik 1. WH style local
Yes in 0.0, but only after a scanner buff.
I hear this fairly often and I am curious, exactly what do you want the scanner to do that it doesn't already?
The only change I'd want to the scanner would be to let us enter the range in AU instead of KM. That'd enable us to change the range a lot faster.
|
Friggz
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 03:13:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi It's really rather simple (which doesn't mean I don't have to explain it, you'd be AMAZED what obvious things people can fail to understand). The problem people have with cloaks at the moment is that, in the right circumstances, they're INFALLIABLE. If someone safespots up and cloaks, they are INVINCIBLE. COMPLETELY. WORTHY OF ALL-CAPS BECAUSE I AM NOT ****ING KIDDING HERE. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever you can do to them, no matter how hard you try. And that's a balance issue.
Cloaks are balanced in most situations. In combat, non-covert cloaks come with some hefty penalities, very few ships are capable of using covert cloaks, neither can even be activated if you're targetted and if you opponent is clever they can decloak you by the simple expediment of crossing paths with you. In gatecamps they're fine because they're only used while the campers size up the target and decide whether to decloak and kill or stay hidden and wimp out; after that they've served their purpose. But when cloaks are being used by a reconnaisance pilot they provide a completely infalliable source of intel when they're at the keyboard and a zero-effort source of psychological warfare when they're not. They're too easy to use for too much advantage with absolutely NO possible counter. And don't bother suggesting any "counter" which doesn't actually deal with the afk cloaker, because while this may surprise you, that wouldn't be a counter. And getting in before those who are just going to say "that's the way it is so DEAL", it's a balance issue. We shouldn't HAVE to "deal" just because you like things being unbalanced your way. Balance is balance all the time, not just when it suits your purposes. Nothing should be infalliable, least of all psychological warfare (it's not like Cloaking is even a hard skill to train).
It's really rather simple (which doesn't mean I don't have to explain it, you'd be AMAZED what obvious things people can fail to understand). The problem people have with docking at the moment is that, in the right circumstances, they're INFALLIABLE. If someone warps to a station and docks, they are INVINCIBLE. COMPLETELY. WORTHY OF ALL-CAPS BECAUSE I AM NOT ****ING KIDDING HERE. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever you can do to them, no matter how hard you try. And that's a balance issue.
When docking ia used by a reconnaisance pilot they provide a completely infalliable source of intel when they're at the keyboard and a zero-effort source of psychological warfare when they're not. They're too easy to use for too much advantage with absolutely NO possible counter. And don't bother suggesting any "counter" which doesn't actually deal with the afk docker, because while this may surprise you, that wouldn't be a counter. And getting in before those who are just going to say "that's the way it is so DEAL", it's a balance issue. We shouldn't HAVE to "deal" just because you like things being unbalanced your way. Balance is balance all the time, not just when it suits your purposes. Nothing should be infalliable, least of all psychological warfare (it's not like docking is even a hard skill to train) ________________________________________________ Love, Friggz
|
Baillif
Red Mist Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 07:21:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Baillif on 26/08/2009 07:21:37 If they put WH style local in 0.0 the tears would be epic
Do it C'mon Do it
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 07:25:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Baillif
If they put WH style local in 0.0 the tears would be epic
At least people wouldnt whine about afk cloaking anymore
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 07:25:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: Kivik 1. WH style local
Yes in 0.0, but only after a scanner buff.
I hear this fairly often and I am curious, exactly what do you want the scanner to do that it doesn't already?
The only change I'd want to the scanner would be to let us enter the range in AU instead of KM. That'd enable us to change the range a lot faster.
- The 'use overview settings'. I would like it to remove friendly ships, after all, it does that in my overview.
- Probes in my overview settings, so I don't have to see the other chaff when looking for them.
- Longer scanning ranges etc etc
There are more but my point is, removal of local is not going to be an easy task. After all, we've seen what happens when CCP rush changes through. 2 second scan delay anyone?
|
Mr Pentex
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 10:04:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Davina Braben Remove local.
This!
|
Mr Pentex
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 10:18:00 -
[74]
My two cent. removing local would just intensify the experiense of flying through 0.0, this is how i see it. Local is an high sec or 0.3 and up thing. Say that the empire or Concord are the providers of the possibility of communcating via "local" chat channel. But when you leave high sec this is not longer an service provided to you as an pilot. So there for 0.0 should be without a locla channel. Any way all corp use their own channels to talk in and do they encounter an other ship they could "hail" the other ship if they have anyting to say. I think this would, as i said before enhance the feeling of empty dangerous space, not knowing who or what is lurking in the darknes
Best regards Mr.Pentex
|
lythos miralbar
4 wing Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 15:11:00 -
[75]
Quote: People don't like AFK cloaking because it's unbalanced as a strategy - it takes a lot more effort to defend against (having a force available and ready to respond immediately around the clock to defend vulnerable ships) than it does to execute (logging on your alt and cloaking at a safe, then tabbing back to gank someone now and then).
This is the most sensible thing anyone has said so far and hits the problem right on the head.
The effort you need to invest to keep a system on 'alert' and ready to counter a threat FAR exceeds the effort needed by the cloaky person.
This is what needs 'balancing'.
I fly a clocking Manticore a lot and its great fun. The solution that has been proposed using 'fuel emissions' and scanning with special scanners wouldn't bother me at all.
The only people I can see it bother are those that make use of what can only be described as a rather lame tactic.
BTW +1 vote for nerfing local completely, you should only show up if you talk, but thats not going to happen
|
Brock Dillinger
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 16:16:00 -
[76]
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
Nice.
|
Brock Dillinger
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 16:28:00 -
[77]
Originally by: lythos miralbar The effort you need to invest to keep a system on 'alert' and ready to counter a threat FAR exceeds the effort needed by the cloaky person.
This is what needs 'balancing'.
The effort needed to train up to fly capitals FAR EXCEEDS the effort needed to fly a Cruiser. I, personally, think this needs 'balancing'. I don't agree with the benefits available for someone who takes the time to train up that skill versus those of us that don't. It's completely unbalanced and unfair.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 16:50:00 -
[78]
Originally by: lythos miralbar Edited by: lythos miralbar on 26/08/2009 15:22:54
Quote: People don't like AFK cloaking because it's unbalanced as a strategy - it takes a lot more effort to defend against (having a force available and ready to respond immediately around the clock to defend vulnerable ships) than it does to execute (logging on your alt and cloaking at a safe, then tabbing back to gank someone now and then).
This is the most sensible thing anyone has said so far and hits the problem right on the head.
The effort you need to invest to keep a system on 'alert' and ready to counter a threat FAR exceeds the effort needed by the cloaky person.
This is what needs 'balancing'.
If this is what needs balancing, the wormholization of Local is the answer.
The problem isn't that people have to put so much effort into being alert when there is a cloaker in system. The problem is that the ONLY time they have to be alert is when the magic Local intel tool tells them they are not alone.
In w-space pilots have to be alert all the time. You learn to assume someone is in system with you whether you can see them or not.
People shouldn't be given the sense of security of KNOWING a system is empty because Local says so. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 22:22:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Clavius XIV on 26/08/2009 22:24:23
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
Originally by: lythos miralbar Edited by: lythos miralbar on 26/08/2009 15:22:54
Quote: People don't like AFK cloaking because it's unbalanced as a strategy - it takes a lot more effort to defend against (having a force available and ready to respond immediately around the clock to defend vulnerable ships) than it does to execute (logging on your alt and cloaking at a safe, then tabbing back to gank someone now and then).
This is the most sensible thing anyone has said so far and hits the problem right on the head.
The effort you need to invest to keep a system on 'alert' and ready to counter a threat FAR exceeds the effort needed by the cloaky person.
This is what needs 'balancing'.
If this is what needs balancing, the wormholization of Local is the answer.
The problem isn't that people have to put so much effort into being alert when there is a cloaker in system. The problem is that the ONLY time they have to be alert is when the magic Local intel tool tells them they are not alone.
In w-space pilots have to be alert all the time. You learn to assume someone is in system with you whether you can see them or not.
People shouldn't be given the sense of security of KNOWING a system is empty because Local says so.
This would be ideal but W-space has several desirable properties that make this much more balanced than a similar implementation in K-space:
1) In W-space the number of hostiles (or friendlies) is limited due to the mass and travel difficulty limits. In K-space you could have, *and easily move* blobs of arbitrary size. Given the difficulty of intel gathering K-space combat would be even more gank oriented than it currently is, with less interesting fights. 2) In W-space finding decent quantities of suitable prey requires significant exploration and roaming. Further once a WH dries up you need to start the search for good hunting grounds again. In K-space, you know areas near station systems, systems with good belts, and systems with lots of npc kills per hr (via map) are likely to have targets, even if you don't have local. 3) 0.0 ratting is already not significantly more lucrative than safe highsec missioning even when rarely interrupted. This will serve to further encourage 0.0 as a desolate wasteland with the occasional highend moon (for those with the ability to defend/take them). The viable targets will consist of players who haven't yet figured out start highsec NPC corp alts to make ISK to fund their PvP, and crazy roleplayers. W-space belt piracy is less lucrative than K-space piracy due to the extra time spent locating good prey.
I have no idea how to fix the issues, most of the "fixes" have their own problems, but I think there is a pretty easy measure to know if whatever the final system is is balanced: if the best of the best, the elite min-maxers of the PvP world, chose ratting in 0.0 as their primary income rather than, highsec mission/industry/trade alts or GTCs, things will be in good shape.
|
Karan SaJet
|
Posted - 2009.08.27 00:56:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Mynas Atoch Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 22/08/2009 19:05:17 Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 22/08/2009 19:03:38
Originally by: Mr Reason
Originally by: Mynas Atoch What I'd like to see for cloaks
1. cloaking gives you agro 2. cloaks use fuel 3. cloak fuel costs are dependent on the mass of the ship 4. cloak fuel is contraband in hi-sec due to its high toxicity 5. cloak fuel is manufactured in reactor arrays in pos due to its toxicity ( 6. cloaking causes HEAT damage (or structure damage) 7. stealth bombers losing the ability to warp cloaked
Possible fuel Plutonium hexafluoride pellets - made from npc Plutonium reacted with fluorspar, a new 'common' mineral seeded on moons and reacted in a Simple Reactor Array.
That just means you'll lose even more Buzzards!
Joking aside, that's some really bad ideas and I expected more logical stuff from you.
LOL that's the point .. I use cloaks most of the time, and know how imbalanced they are. Its absolutely unfair to alliances that war dec mine that I can move around empire with total impunity in a covops or blockade runner. Its totally ridiculous that I can cloak and watch them permanently with no possibility of them uncovering me. And don't get me started on being able to cloak supercaps and carriers with the same module and no chance of discovery if not seen before cloaking. Cloaking is great - but give our opponents a chance.
Also
Quote: What I'd like to see for NPC in 0.0
1. all npc are equipped with infinipoints 2. all gate npc are equipped with 90% webs and mobile warp disrupt bubble generators 3. npc spawns escalate with player ship size 4. npc choose damage type to players weakest resist 5. shooting npc causes 15min aggro timer 6. engaged npc emit a distress beacon visible on overview for everyone
I agree with 3, 4 and 5 and want Wormhole Aliens to develop a supercap with capital killing deathray, as currently their +6BS per player capital ship doesn't scale well. I'd also like the Wormhole aliens to counter attack and go for player POS in their systems when they get ****ed off. Wormhole Alien raids into K-Space would be great too. Why can we use the wormholes to attack them but they can't attack us? but I digress
sounds like some 1 ****ed geting podded by a SB. Blockade runners are ment to do that otherwise ther would be no use to have blocake runners just indys. Cove ops are ment to to that, recon, gathher intel observ oposing fleet. now if you complain of cloacking then i can agree in a way that only covops, recons, black ops, blockaderunners can cloak thats fine, that what there ment to be and i understand if no other ships can use cloack exept for this, but if your talking about nerfing cloack type ships then i dissagree, if you want a limit on cloaking time then we should get back blink abilitys, if you want cloack to use fuel then we should get back 300% speed bonus while cloacked, if you want cloackers to be scanable then we should have T2 ressistance on our SB CovOps, now that balancing. Pll should stop crying and asking for nerf just cose a guy in a clocky ship dosent let them feel confortable to ratt.
|
|
MaxxOmega
Caldari Rukongai Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.08.27 18:01:00 -
[81]
I want to be able to fire my weapons while cloaked. And while AFK. Weapons that fire on there own while cloaked while I am off having a dump. I want to be able to fire missiles without logging onto game... OMG pls fix...
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |