| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jemos
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2009.08.18 19:14:00 -
[1]
First of all I choose this forum because of the "tactics" part.
Now to subject. In both assembly hall and F&I forums, are alot of threads for nerfing cloaks. Why?
Is it because of the Black op class ships that suddenly made cloakers a viable option? Or have everyone suddenly decided that macroratters/afk cloakers is the largest problem in eve?
With the afk cloaker issue, Risk vs reward always shows up. Personal opinion: if you don't wanna risk flying in a system with a single hostile (yes, alot whine about a single hostile cloaking), what makes you supposed to reap the reward (ratting anyone?)?
So, I'd like people that think cloaking should be nerfed to write not an essay, but a short hood argumentative text about why cloaking should be nerfed.
Plese, not anything about that cloaking shouldn't be nerfed. I personally don't think cloaking should be nerfed.
 Originally by: FireT
If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away. 
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 19:30:00 -
[2]
Because they are ****ing bears 
|
Mr Reason
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 19:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 18/08/2009 19:51:51
Cloaks as such are fine, being able to afk cloak 23/7 is not so great. Ofcourse then they come with the "if he's AFK how can he hurt you" which ofcourse is backwards reasoning, yet people use it a lot as it seems to make sense. It doesn't. Thing is ofcourse that it's a very effective tactic, especially when done on an alt you don't (have to) control. And that is why people are so against changing it, it's not that they can't see how rediculous it is, it's more than because they make use of it they'll defend it till the end of times.
There's some really decent ideas out there (specifically this thread) that do not make the life of a cloaker impossible, it just makes it more difficult to be afk while doing it.
I'm sure there'll be a ton of replies to this about how I'm wrong etc but again, the people defending it are the people (ab)using it. And as I stated in that linked thread, 80% of my chars fly covops, 5 of them fly recons on regular basis so it's not like I'm trying to 'nerf' something I can't/don't use myself. |
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:12:00 -
[4]
Remove local.
|
Gibbo5771
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:28:00 -
[5]
cloaks do not need nerfed, there is F U C K all wrong with them, why nerf something called cloak, you may aswell change the name otherwise, they are a tool to help run gatecamps and hide when they dont want to fight, which is a viable tactic in my opinion.
When i solo 0.0, i always fit a cloak, not to hide, to pick my fight and avoid what i cant match (you know, that big 30 man blob with the hic on the gate?!)
So in short, nerf cloaks and you may aswell take them out the game or change the name to something more relevent, "Sorta-Cloak", with the description, "Still in testing by concord and doesent quite work yet, decloaking randomly may occur by natural gases in space"
Sarcasm ^, leave them be
|
Kurfin
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 21:06:00 -
[6]
I don't get how you can cry nerf about a module that everyone can use? Next they'll be whining about damage controls.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 21:17:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/08/2009 21:17:26
AFK cloaking is fine and necessary as long as local chat exists.
If you wanna change AFK cloaking local chat needs to me removed first.
|
SheriffFruitfly
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:06:00 -
[8]
Because they don't have falcon to kick around any more.
__________________________________________________________
|
Turin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 00:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 18/08/2009 21:17:26
AFK cloaking is fine and necessary as long as local chat exists.
If you wanna change AFK cloaking local chat needs to me removed first.
Lemme guess. Your a pirate who is mad that you have to keep working for targets, and have a hard time ganking the carebears? Waaaaa. I love seeing posts like yours. Your whining tears sustain me in bad times.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 00:31:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2009 00:31:49
Originally by: Turin
Lemme guess. Your a pirate who is mad that you have to keep working for targets, and have a hard time ganking the carebears? Waaaaa. I love seeing posts like yours. Your whining tears sustain me in bad times.
Lulz, did you get your poor ship violenced by the bad people?
I know reading is out of fashion these days, but where you saw me whining? I'm just afk-cloaking and keep you from ratting
Good luck trying to get it nerfed, not gonna happen.
|
Turin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 01:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2009 00:31:49
Originally by: Turin
Lemme guess. Your a pirate who is mad that you have to keep working for targets, and have a hard time ganking the carebears? Waaaaa. I love seeing posts like yours. Your whining tears sustain me in bad times.
Lulz, did you get your poor ship violenced by the bad people?
I know reading is out of fashion these days, but where you saw me whining? I'm just afk-cloaking and keep you from ratting
Good luck trying to get it nerfed, not gonna happen.
Your the one whining about local. And yes, anyone who at this point, posts about local, is whining.
I dont care about the cloaks tbh. I think its kinda lame they can sit cloaked AFK all day, but whatever. But the local whiners make me laugh.
|
Tortugan
F9X
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 01:28:00 -
[12]
I have no problem with being able to stay cloaked and stay safe. I have a problem with playing the game AFK. This is the same reason I don't like that Amarr never need to realod if they're using the right ammo at a POS bash- if you're playing the game, you should be at your keyboard and engaged- not rubbing one off on your HD tv the next room over.
----
Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy.
Killboard |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 03:17:00 -
[13]
Quote:
rubbing one off on your HD tv the next room over.
What if we're rubbing one off while alt + tabbed out, yet at the keyboard?
|
TheMaster42
Lobster Gazelle Unicorn
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 03:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Davina Braben
Remove local.
This.
Nobody would have to stay logged on 23/7 if local didn't instantly tell when you entered the system.
Also the address book for showing when you logged on.
|
Allahs Warrior
Gallente
Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 04:02:00 -
[15]
remove local and allow special scan probes to provide warpins on cloaked ships within 10km.
|
Robert0288
Caldari
g guild
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 05:54:00 -
[16]
cloaks are nerfed as it is. Leave 'em alone  |
Cedric Allrian
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 07:31:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Cedric Allrian on 19/08/2009 07:32:46
In my opinion cloaking is ok.
In fact, if you nerf cloaking to be scannable, why shouldn't there be a cloak at all? If there is the possiblility to be scanned down, then i don't need a cloak. What would it bring as value then?
yeah, and i like chatting in local while i do missions/mining/production.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 07:32:00 -
[18]
The only complaint I have on cloaks is that they are easy to buy but sometimes hard to relist and resell with a profit 
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Shanija
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 11:29:00 -
[19]
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).
|
Borun Tal
Minmatar
Virtual Rock Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 22:15:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Cedric Allrian
In fact, if you nerf cloaking to be scannable, why shouldn't there be a cloak at all? If there is the possiblility to be scanned down, then i don't need a cloak. What would it bring as value then?
I think that's what they're getting at: nerf them out of existence...
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 23:17:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2009 23:19:47
Originally by: Turin
Your the one whining about local. And yes, anyone who at this point, posts about local, is whining.
Local as an intel tool is broken, and the ones that are whining are actually the failbears in 0.0 that dont deserve their space in the first place 
I'm not whining, I'm merely stating a fact that is common knowledge. In fact, as soon as local is removed AFK-cloaking as a tactic is effectively removed as well, thats what you bears want, no?
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 00:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
as soon as local is removed AFK-cloaking as a tactic is effectively removed as well
This.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
rubico1337
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 00:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Davina Braben
Remove local.
THIS
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate
Raining Doom
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 06:15:00 -
[24]
I fly Arazu, decently...I feel like a god.
I can ss and cloak and you are not finding me. I can travel through highsec and lose WTs at camps, even inties(barely). I can sneak up on ratters and through bubbles. Only time I'm vulnerable is when I'm not cloaked. And I cna make that tricky.
My damps still suck though.
What I have notice as a challenge to my omnipotence is cloak Raven ratters...****ing *****s. And afk SBs...
Cloak needs an afk nerf. Maybe some sort of long term cloak probe so we have to move around every 30 seconds? Just like subs in WW2 have depth charges and sonar.
Until then, it's like the Atlantic coast with the free-roaming U-boat wolfpacks, turn lights off, go indoors and hope ships don't sink.
7 |
STINKYPIEMCSTINKER
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 15:49:00 -
[25]
It pains me to say this as one who is primarily interested in killing bears rather than bear-ing, but...
The directional scanner has been severely nerfed with this most recent patch.
Scan probes are now more powerful and imbalanced than ever, and in my eyes the 'new' scan probe mechanics had the effect of making probes very very powerful, nevermind this new directional scanner nerf.
I agree with the assertion that to remove afk cloaking as a valid tactic, one must first remove local or add a local delay...
And as such, with the directional scanner nerf taken into consideration, I feel that removing local or adding a delay would severely imbalance 0.0 and lowsec in favor of the attacker.
That's right, it wouldn't be fair for the carebears.
The attacker already has scanprobes, an extremely powerful tool when used properly (in tandem with a range adjusted directional scan), and very effective as a bear killing tool. Giving the attacker a local delay or a WH style local would tip the balance given the directional nerf.
Further, AFK cloaking isn't that big a deal. The carebears need to grow a pair and deal with it. Fit a point to your carebearing ship and be prepared to fight back, or fly something fast to align and warp so that the evil cloaky recon or stealth bomber won't be able to catch you.
Also, here's a thought; find out where your adversaries are doing their carebearing (because they *are* carebearing, somewhere), and afk cloak in their systems.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:01:00 -
[26]
Quote:
Fit a point to your carebearing ship and be prepared to fight back, or fly something fast to align and warp so that the evil cloaky recon or stealth bomber won't be able to catch you
And your magic recipe for those low sec L4 missioning in a battleship that can be neuted and owned by everyone is?
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
STINKYPIEMCSTINKER
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:08:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Fit a point to your carebearing ship and be prepared to fight back, or fly something fast to align and warp so that the evil cloaky recon or stealth bomber won't be able to catch you
And your magic recipe for those low sec L4 missioning in a battleship that can be neuted and owned by everyone is?
I wasn't aware that afk cloakers had a presence in lowsec. I've only seen it in lucrative nullsec ratting systems or station systems.
As to your question; I agree with your implied point entirely. It is pretty much impossible to safely run missions in lowsec, and that's entirely because of how powerful scanprobes are at present.
I still find it hard to believe that this directional scanner nerf is real. They are justifying it "because of exploits", doesn't make any sense.
Right now, if you want to run missions or sites in lowsec, you pretty much must dock or cloak as soon as local spikes; scanprobes are that powerful and are already extremely difficult to detect (and in two hours they will be even moreso).
Anyways, the solution is to mission in highsec, just find a good agent in a 0.5 or 0.6 and you're all set.
|
savings1122
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: STINKYPIEMCSTINKER
WH style local
this !!!!
|
Flair Firestar
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:56:00 -
[29]
What actually are they nerfing on the scanner? I read through the notes an couldnŠt really find any change to the scanner (assuming you mean the directional one) |
Zal Dakkar
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 16:59:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Zal Dakkar on 20/08/2009 17:03:25
Originally by: Shanija
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.
In regards to the discussion about local chat, I would support getting rid of it (or going to WH style). It would definitely change the game drastically, but ultimately for the better in my opinion. Local simply gives far too much intel, and does so instantly, with next to zero effort involved. Getting rid of local would be a pretty big nerf to alt scouts as you would need to be fairly active in observing a gate to see if people come through. It definitely gives more advantage to the attacker, but I think that ratters, miners, missioners, and plexers would adapt to the change and come up with defensive strategies. Additionally, it gives an advantage to cov ops enabled ships as they would be near undetectable (except for jumping in/out or dropping probes) until they decide to engage. One would hope it might make it easier to ambush an enemy gang and result in more engagements, as opposed to gangs running away unless they have a significant advantage. At the same time it may also make it harder to ever detect the presence of an enemy gang and would increase the need for real scouting.
Even if local is removed I still think they should add probes that are able to find cloaked ships. Obviously, they would need to have limitations (long scan time, etc), but afk cloaking for hours or days at a time, especially in non-cov ops ships, is a lame tactic.... not to mention it wastes bandwidth, cpu, and energy IRL. |
Amanda Mor
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 18:03:00 -
[31]
Can someone, anyone, PLEASE explain to me why getting rid of local will "solve" the afk cloaking problem? It just doesn't make any sense at all, but every afk-cloaking thread ends up devolving into a nerf local whine.
If anything, removing local makes afk cloaking even more powerful a tactic, not less. You'd come into system, go to your safespot and sit cloaked for awhile while watching TV, then come back every now and then go gank a ratter. The difference is, without local (and obviously being immune to being scanned down), the other side doesn't even know you're in system and won't know that they need to be ready. And if you're strategy is to sit in the system all day to disrupt their ratting and there's delayed local, then what's preventing you from typing and making it known that you're in the system? I just can't imagine the words to describe how stupid this logic is. You're not removing AFK cloaking as a tactic, you're just making it even stronger.
Cloaking, in and of itself, is fine, and they shouldn't add a probe that can scan down an active cloaker. AFK cloaking is stupid, so just add a timer to the cloaking module that requires the player to press a button every 2 minutes or so to keep the cloak active. It wouldn't require you to drop your cloak, and to make it even easier, there would be a warning box that would pop up to remind you. All it would require is for you to be at your computer. It's really quite simple, if you want to sit in the system all day and disrupt operations, that's great, but you're going to have to actually be at your computer expending at least a modi****of effort. The only people who would have a problem with this are afk cloakers...
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 18:16:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Amanda Mor
Can someone, anyone, PLEASE explain to me why getting rid of local will "solve" the afk cloaking problem? It just doesn't make any sense at all, but every afk-cloaking thread ends up devolving into a nerf local whine.
The cloaking whine is because certain people feel they just can't go ratting or mining or whatever with a hostile cloaked in the system. AFK cloaking is thus a form of psychological warfare. If local wasn't telling them the enemy was there, the AFK cloaker wouldn't have this power.
Furthermore, the main reason for AFK cloaking is to hide your activity. When you enter a system, any ratter or miner who is watching local can warp to a safespot and cloak with 100% certainty of safety. There is no way you can scan down, warp to, and tackle a target in the time it takes them to align and warp. So what to do? Cloak and go AFK for a few hours in their system. Then when you come back to the console they will have gotten used to you and you can start moving around without spooking them. Of course, if Local is nerfed, there'll be no reason to do this.
So, nerfing Local will eliminate the power of the AFK cloaking tactic, and also eliminate the need for it.
|
Deelicious
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 18:22:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Deelicious on 20/08/2009 18:23:27
What, exactly, is the problem with AFK cloaking? I get that it unnerves some people. But... I could care less about that.
Is it not a problem as long as someone is sitting at the keyboard? If that's not a problem, why do you care about AFK? Its not like they can gather any info if they aren't ATK. If you don't like long term cloaking AFK or ATK, what is the issue?
Is it that you don't like that cloaks can perma-run? If so, how do you feel about cap stable builds in general? Are they a problem? Should all cap stability and perma-running mods be done away with?
Maybe you just don't like cloaking (i.e., you haven't trained it)? Here's something to consider: as long as the ship is cloaked, it's powerless to act. If it's not a cov ops cloak capable ship, uncloaking is a serious weakness because of the targeting delay and they can't warp cloaked. If it IS a covops capable ship, then someone put a LOT of time into training for it. And the ship is fulfilling a role that requires the pilot to put a great deal of planning into everything she does. Covops capable vessels are fragile; once caught they are almost always killed.
edit: i was writing my post when previous poster replied. i understand a little better now, thanks. |
Amanda Mor
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 18:41:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Amanda Mor
Can someone, anyone, PLEASE explain to me why getting rid of local will "solve" the afk cloaking problem? It just doesn't make any sense at all, but every afk-cloaking thread ends up devolving into a nerf local whine.
The cloaking whine is because certain people feel they just can't go ratting or mining or whatever with a hostile cloaked in the system. AFK cloaking is thus a form of psychological warfare. If local wasn't telling them the enemy was there, the AFK cloaker wouldn't have this power.
Furthermore, the main reason for AFK cloaking is to hide your activity. When you enter a system, any ratter or miner who is watching local can warp to a safespot and cloak with 100% certainty of safety. There is no way you can scan down, warp to, and tackle a target in the time it takes them to align and warp. So what to do? Cloak and go AFK for a few hours in their system. Then when you come back to the console they will have gotten used to you and you can start moving around without spooking them. Of course, if Local is nerfed, there'll be no reason to do this.
So, nerfing Local will eliminate the power of the AFK cloaking tactic, and also eliminate the need for it.
Joe, I appreciate the explanation, but I actually understand the tactic fairly well. What I disagree with is the "Of course, if local is nerfed, there'll be no reason to do this".
Removing local doesn't eliminate the psychological warfare aspect (and, by extension the afk cloaking tactic). There's two things an afk cloaker is after: first to disrupt the operations in system simply by the other side knowing you're there but not being able to find you (thus they have to be ready for you and take resources from somewhere else etc). Obviously, in this case, if they don't know you're there, they won't take the time to be ready to defend against you, so you aren't disrupting there operations. The problem is, it's pretty easy to make yourself known in system while still not risking your ship. Instead of going to your safe, cloaking and going afk, now you'd warp to 100km of a few belts first, decloak, make sure someone sees you, and then go to your safe and go afk until they drop their guard. Or you'd type in local to make your char appear there (like in WH-type local as some people suggested). Instead of being able to go afk for 23 hours a day, removing local would mean you could "only" be afk cloaked for 22hrs and 55 minutes...
The other thing that an AFK cloaker could be after is easy ganks against ratters who aren't expecting him. Removing local makes his job MUCH easier, for obvious reasons. The remove local suggestion in this case is analogous to CCP "nerfing" Falcons by decreasing the sensor strengths of every ship in the game, and giving a huge boost to ECM jamming modules (ie, completely counter-productive).
You can't nerf a module that allows you to hide by making it even more difficult for you to be found, the logic just doesn't work.
And again, I don't have a problem with cloaking, I have a problem with AFK cloaking. |
jemos
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 19:47:00 -
[35]
So, I will have to change my mind to the fact that AFK cloaking may be a problem.
The most convincing argument so far is the pure waste of server and RL energy reserves (yeah).
Having a target in system just sitting and waiting (for more than 1hr) is like having a massive psychological gun pointed to your head. Taking the responses hear I take it people still can't accept to loose a ratting ship. Since I was flying in Venal, ratting in a pvp fitted deimos really made life simple (massive kin output, and hey. PVP ship).
From my point of view, it feels like the whine about cloaks is becouse you don't feel safe ratting in an unsafe zone (nullsec, and if you for some reason end up in a war...) or mining. With an alt account and the eve client in window mode. I ventured out into a WH space with Highsec hub access. Doing this I felt that the lack of local was pretty disturbing (also i'm a seasoned scanner, so I knew what a scanable target I was); So, the solution? SPAM the directional scanner. And now what, CCP are nerfing this making the reactivation period 2sec (bringing it in line with scan probebes?)
I'm not 100% sure about how Delayed local mode work tbh, if I tell evryone that i'm in system, will a ship upon entry see my face in local, or will any new ships in system have to wait untill I decide to stick my head out again?
Originally by: FireT
If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.08.20 23:50:00 -
[36]
The only reason people whine about afk-cloaking is it removes local as their intel tool for 100% safe ratting.
This was never intended in lawless space, so I cant see the problem. If you ask me, covert op ships showing up in local is the problem.
Keep local chat as it is, but dont have covert op ships show there. Problem solved, if people want to go on keeping their pc running 23/7 fine, it wont disturb your ratting anymore.
After all, nullsec is supposed to be dangerous, just the fact that you found an easy way around it doesnt mean its meant that way.
|
Iria Ahrens
Amarr
101st Space Marine Force
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 08:18:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Iria Ahrens on 21/08/2009 08:20:31
However big a problem afk cloaking may be, removing local is a far greater problem. You wouldn't be able to see your allies either, or have any idea at all how many players are in system. There could be an entire red fleet 30k off your port bow, and you none the wiser. Lookouts wouldn't even matter because these fleets could just jump in log off, and log back in a few hours later. Then there is covert ops...
If local were removed then scanners would need some kind of boost. At least have scanners tell you, "There are 3 cloaked ships in system." even if they cannot say where.
I'm in the "just fit a point" and get on with life crowd myself. Heck, half the time when I ask around I find the afk cloaker is flying an anathema, not exacty a ship that makes me tremble in my boots.
--
EVE is about balls, brains, and paranoia. SP comes in a distant fourth place. |
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 18:23:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Davina Braben
Remove local.
|
Tortugan
F9X
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 03:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Deelicious
Edited by: Deelicious on 20/08/2009 18:23:27
What, exactly, is the problem with AFK cloaking? I get that it unnerves some people. But... I could care less about that.
Is it not a problem as long as someone is sitting at the keyboard? If that's not a problem, why do you care about AFK? Its not like they can gather any info if they aren't ATK. If you don't like long term cloaking AFK or ATK, what is the issue?
Is it that you don't like that cloaks can perma-run? If so, how do you feel about cap stable builds in general? Are they a problem? Should all cap stability and perma-running mods be done away with?
Maybe you just don't like cloaking (i.e., you haven't trained it)? Here's something to consider: as long as the ship is cloaked, it's powerless to act. If it's not a cov ops cloak capable ship, uncloaking is a serious weakness because of the targeting delay and they can't warp cloaked. If it IS a covops capable ship, then someone put a LOT of time into training for it. And the ship is fulfilling a role that requires the pilot to put a great deal of planning into everything she does. Covops capable vessels are fragile; once caught they are almost always killed.
edit: i was writing my post when previous poster replied. i understand a little better now, thanks.
Specifically, I think it's stupid that people can safely go AFK in space under any circumstances in 0.0. If you're at keyboard, I have no problem with it, but leaving yourself alone in unprotected space AFK should have consequences.
The easy solution would be to give cloaks a 10 minute cycle that can't auto-repeat, and making the reactivation delay on everything except covops frigs significant enough that if you didn't warp around a bit, you'd have a chance of being scanned down.
Again- cloaks in general are fine, but if you're AFK in 0.0 space, you deserve to get podded just like the bears who whine about you showing up in their local.
|
Dunkin McLoud
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 04:46:00 -
[40]
Now what would you guys prefer doing one the no more afk cloaking at all nerfs or one of the only afk cloak in covert ops/black ops/stealth bomber/recon ship nerf.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 04:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Dunkin McLoud
Now what would you guys prefer doing one the no more afk cloaking at all nerfs or one of the only afk cloak in covert ops/black ops/stealth bomber/recon ship nerf.
How about the "none of the above, crying sucks" nerf?
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
jemos
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 07:33:00 -
[42]
About afk cloaking and a 10min cyckle to a cloak, honestly if someone would add a cycle to a cloak, it should be 1hour or so. Just to do a cross reference with our all time favorite game WOW! Well, if you're afk in wow for a certain amount of time, you will be dropped to the character selection screen, and after some additional time, you will be dropped from the game.
We don't have that mechanic in eve. And I'm happy about it!
I think, that cloak on a non "covert" ship can/should/are acting as a way to be afk without the need to log off. As soon as you exit highsec the ammount of stations is reduced to almost null. Since you can't dock up (and docking can be perhibited, or blow your position away to much) You can need a way to be afk without loging out from the game.
Lets face it, when you're in a fleet you don't want to log off evry time RL crisis. If you're fitted with a cloak go go safespot and cloak; fix the RL issue come back. Evry enemy knows you're there (assuming your fleet already left).
Personal Opinion, Cloaking is fine. A non "covert" ship will have a serious setback due to the cloak, and a "covert" ship, usually lacks the offensive capabillities to accually do some damage to ships smaller than a BC. Apart from the sheer ammount of lacking in damage, they're normally just an annoying element.
Suck it up, dare to risk something
Go back to highsec and run missions
Or gogo ratting in a cheap ship.
And if you just have to mine. Learn to Align your ship (this goes for ratters to)
Fake Edit: No I did not include how non covert ships can use the cloak as a strategic module on the offence, but we were talking about AFKs right!?
Originally by: FireT
If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
|
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 07:58:00 -
[43]
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.
![]() |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 10:13:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/08/2009 10:21:37
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
What I'd like to see for cloaks
...
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
About as reasonable as your ideas imo.
|
Mr Reason
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 10:40:00 -
[45]
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.
|
Ghostmane
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 13:27:00 -
[46]
Dont need to remove local, just make it more like a radio broadcast. If you talk people monitering it know your around, if you never speak then your invisible in a sense. Instantly knowing who is in a system by looking at local, its just too easy. On the other hand, you should be able to reveal your in a system to corpies and alliance members.
As for cloaks, they should be probable. That said .. even if someone can tag your location, they should not be able to see or target you once nearby. This leads to the next point. To actually FIND the cloaker, the hunter would need something like smart bombs (depth chargers anyone?) to break the cloak and reveal them. |
Mynas Atoch
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 18:59:00 -
[47]
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
![]() |
Mr Reason
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 19:16:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Mr Reason on 22/08/2009 19:16:23
Check this post, could use some tweaking but the basic idea i think works fine. Punishes the AFK recons and rewards people for not being afk.
Be sure to read Mag's usual crying and smoke screening, it's entertaining how he every time twists some words hoping to divert from the actual facts.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 22:37:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Amanda Mor
Joe, I appreciate the explanation, but I actually understand the tactic fairly well. What I disagree with is the "Of course, if local is nerfed, there'll be no reason to do this".
Removing local doesn't eliminate the psychological warfare aspect (and, by extension the afk cloaking tactic). There's two things an afk cloaker is after: first to disrupt the operations in system simply by the other side knowing you're there but not being able to find you (thus they have to be ready for you and take resources from somewhere else etc). Obviously, in this case, if they don't know you're there, they won't take the time to be ready to defend against you, so you aren't disrupting there operations.
The difference is, without Local, you don't actually have to sit in one system AFK in order to have this effect. You can roam an entire constellation or region, allowing people to see you on directional scan, and none of them will quite know where you are. Furthermore, you can go back to friendly space, or log out of the game, and people will still be on edge. You don't actually have to be AFK in a system for people to think you're there.
In contrast to your last sentence quoted above, people in 0.0 will always take the time to be prepared to defend against attack. That's a good thing and it should always have been a part of the cost of living in 0.0.
|
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 11:34:00 -
[50]
Cloaks need to eat up energy. type II eat less. am I saying they should drain you dry in like 5min. no, but they should drain you dry in about 1hr-2hr.
|
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 11:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
What I'd like to see for cloaks
1. cloaking gives you agro - eh no
2. cloaks use fuel - okay i like this
3. cloak fuel costs are dependent on the mass of the ship - I like this too
4. cloak fuel is contraband in hi-sec due to its high toxicity - okay.. I can work with this
5. cloak fuel is manufactured in reactor arrays in pos due to its toxicity - nah
6. cloaking causes HEAT damage (or structure damage) - you're a whining carebear
7. stealth bombers losing the ability to warp cloaked - what have you been smoking?
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.
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 14:41:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mr Reason
Edited by: Mr Reason on 22/08/2009 19:16:23
Check this post, could use some tweaking but the basic idea i think works fine. Punishes the AFK recons and rewards people for not being afk.
Be sure to read Mag's usual crying and smoke screening, it's entertaining how he every time twists some words hoping to divert from the actual facts.
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 06:55:00 -
[53]
Edited by: debbie harrio on 24/08/2009 06:56:04
Show me on the teddy where the big bad cloaker touched you.........
There is nothing wrong with cloaking mechanics, there is, however, something wrong with the whiners, methinks they want to ISK farm with NO risks.
|
Merdaneth
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 07:21:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Amanda Mor
Removing local doesn't eliminate the psychological warfare aspect (and, by extension the afk cloaking tactic). Instead of being able to go afk for 23 hours a day, removing local would mean you could "only" be afk cloaked for 22hrs and 55 minutes...
Removing local doesn't cause this. Everyone who has *seen* the cloaker now can assume he's moved off after an hour. Everyone who starts ratting/whatever in the system after the cloaker has shown itself, is never bothered by it, because they don't know.
Additionally, everyone who *hasn't seen* a cloaker must still be alert 23/7 because a cloaker (or other ship) might still be there to pounce upon them.
The presence in local makes the 'psychological gun' poignant, not the knowledge someone may pounce upon you any moment. People don't complain about AFK cloakers in wormholes, and why should they? It really doesn't matter to them, they have to maintain some level of alertness anyway.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Arcane Azmadi
Caldari
First Flying Wing Inc
Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 08:39:00 -
[55]
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).
|
Mesenjah
Minmatar
Edin Na Zu
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 09:00:00 -
[56]
I see a wall of tears. QQ more, srsly. You're almost as bad as WoW players blaming blizzard for every little problem. You're just a subscriber; this doesn't give you development rights OR any real say over how the game changes. Just be glad CCP listens to you at all and implements some of your input.
I'm not going to bother stating my opinion on this matter, as it doesn't really matter what I think. It's not going to change anything. Cry more. Your tears are lolworthy; but worthy of little else.
Satisfaction is the death of desire |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 10:53:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
It's really rather simple.
Yes it is.
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever you can do to them, no matter how hard you try.
And they cannot do anything to you, no matter how hard they try.
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
Nothing should be infalliable, least of all psychological warfare.
Psychological warfare only works, if you allow it to work and that's it fallibility.
He's hoping for irrational behaviour from those in the system, causing panic and people like yourself, give him what he needs.
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi
Cloaks are balanced.....
Correct.
|
Freya Gleamingstar
Amarr
Storm Genesis
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 11:59:00 -
[58]
There are multiple aspects to this ongoing arguement, ranging from people whinging about cloaks in general, to the tactics, to the actual ships.
Personally, as a user of cloaks on covops/recon and occasionally on non covops ships, as well as a victim of said tactics, I dont see many problems inherent in the cloaks or the ships they were designed for.
The largest issue i have is that non-covops ships can fit the Improved Cloak, and aside from the small recalibration time (which lets face it is negligible with good skills) does not reduce the combat effectiveness of the ship in any way.
How to counter this? The 2 threads of thought here. The first, and most discussed, is to reduce the cloaks effectiveness - make it possible to have the cloaker scanned out, or increase the activation cost so that it would be difficult to run the cloak for any period of time. This is perhaps the wrong train of thought, as it also penalizes the actual covops users, which to be fair, have a hard enough time surviving out there sometimes.
I think the other direction was touched on in another thread:
Increase the CPU requirements for all cloaking devices, and include the covops/recon cloaking CPU bonus to cover those too. If someone wanted to use a Prototype/Improved cloak on their non covops BC/HAC/Frigate, they could, but would have to compromise at least some of their fittings.
By nature a lot of ships have spare non turret highslots and cpu to throw on a cloak. It seems just wrong for them to be able to do this and retain their full tank, dps and ability.
Replied here but feel this is definitely more a fitting issue than a tactics problem.
[color=#FF0000]{SGX}<AM> Curmudgeon and Veteran Sabre Rattler[/color]
|
Freya Gleamingstar
Amarr
Storm Genesis
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 12:00:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Freya Gleamingstar on 24/08/2009 12:00:15
Double post
[color=#FF0000]{SGX}<AM> Curmudgeon and Veteran Sabre Rattler[/color]
|
Kivik
TEMPLAR.
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 09:03:00 -
[60]
1. WH style local
2. T2 probes that can scan down cloaked ships
|
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] |