| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
darius mclever
   |
Posted - 2010.08.03 16:10:00 -
[1]
so you want to make the blob even more powerful and nerf the lone wolf even more?
because thats what you would get, especially since you used a BS hull which is dead meat without proper support. so what you get would be something like:
- gang forms up to kill the solo cloaker.
- you fire your decloak pulse (mostlikely from a pos shield so you can burn back in quickly, no need to risk that expensive ship)
- prober probes out the formerly cloaked ship
- blob warps in and kills it.
- people go back to ratting in their PVE fit ships like it would be highsec.
And to give you some more scenarios you might see in the future:
gate camp. their scout on the other side reports "merrr in a viator, might be juicy faction loot in it",
you jump into their gate camp. bubble is up. as normally you would fire the mwd and hit cloak to drift out of the bubble and warp. bam. the decloak pulse goes off and the ceptor locks you. good bye viator.
your chance of survival now 0%. your chance of survival before more like 70-80%.
you can basically replace the blockade runner with every recon and covert op ship. ships specifically designed to operate in hostile/enemy space.
Instead of just handing the blob more tools to kill lone wolf, did you ever consider that you should never feel 100% in space and that you should always be prepared to fight or run? (e.g. not flying around in poor pve fit ships like it is highsec) That would make yourself a much harder prey.
And yes your idea is anything but new.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 16:37:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: StrokeRD01
Edited by: StrokeRD01 on 03/08/2010 16:17:36
Good points I did miss. My intent isn't to weed out the solo and small gangs. If you got decloaked, there is nothing to stop you from warping around till you can cloak again. Its mainly a deterrent to the people that cloak and go afk for long periods of time.
But I do see the point of the gate camp with one being overpowered. Do you have any suggestions to see how it would still be effective but not at say a gate camp? make it perhaps like a DD? where you cant warp or move for say a minute after firing? or perhaps make it burn fuel and only be able to carry a select number of firings before you wouldn't have enough cargo space?
Leave it as is?
If the person is AFK. he cant do anything to you. Nada.
If he is *not* AFK, it is all the matter of how prepared you are. did you bring neuts to get rid of the point in time. or EC-300s. is your ship able to hold out for a while until friends can come to help you (hopefully not in another battleship that cant hit the stealthbomber!). Ratting in pvp ships really works. Or you could rat in groups so you wont get caught solo in the first place. (team work ftw) In the stealthbomber thread a few threads below i linked the bomber solo hunting video from the ev0ke guy. the victims sometimes didnt even fire back or atleast put drones on him. And if their friends got to help them they brought other battleships that tried to kill the bomber. *facepalms* also ratting in AFs/HACs/BCs/cruisers works nicely. even in 0.0. (or even t1 frigates as people have shown in a video this week)
For many people the procedure is "hostile/neutral in local, dock up/go to the pos" and then they sit it out. Cloak allows you to wait with them until they feel confident enough again to continue ratting solo or mining solo. the other option would be ceptors and hope you manage to warp to the belt or so fast enough to land tackle before the ratter warped out. This doesnt really work well most of the time. so we are back to the waiting game. And here the "victims" can just improve them self to be less easy preys. But it is easier to ask for nerfing others than improving yourself?
And for the gate camps... competent ceptor pilots are worth a lot. ;)
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 18:15:00 -
[3]
Originally by: StrokeRD01
You are missing the point of the post Robert. I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist, I'm saying that there should be some form of balance so that there is a counter to it. As it stands, there isn't a viable counter.
I like the tech 3 sub system idea too. That could be really good. Instead of fitting the cloaking sub system, fit one that allows the probe launcher or "ping" module.
You need a counter to something that doesnt hurt anyone?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 18:43:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Pringles Chips
I am a pure pvp pilot on my main... thats all i do! I love cloaks and the ability to spy/ setup the enemy. But i have to agree with the op... why does everything in the game have a counter and not this one.... And i really appreciate your approach of thinking of a solution for both sides and not just nerfing things. A new ship/moduale is a great idea. Esp if it is just role specific... That would make it less common and not a perfered pvp ship. (minus in fleets/gate camps)
Uhm ... lock the ship. cloak countered. stay within 2500m of the ship. cloak countered.
If you need another counter to cloak. do we need a counter to stations/outposts/POSses aswell?
people use those aswell to hide from pvp. It is real irony that only cloaking gets such a massive whine. if the cloaker sees other 5 people in local inside a station system.
1 raven on scan (the obvious ratter), who tells him the other 4 are docked up? who tells him they are not sitting right next to the raven, waiting for the the cloaked guy to make a move? (hello smart idea btw)
but the claim is always, "he has all the control", "We cant use our system!!!11!". "we cant do more than sitting in the station all day because he is there all day long" and all that is just laughable. If people would just stop to fly around in 0.0/lowsec like they do in highsec.... *sighs*
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 20:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: StrokeRD01
Darius - There are counters to stations/pos/outposts. They are called dreadnoughts. From a mechanics stand point, cloaks really don't have a viable counter.
honest question ... when was the last time you helped capturing an outpost/system?
besides you still wouldnt force the people to undock.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 21:38:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Rhadia
Daaaarrrriiiuuuuuuuussssssss
You're only posting points here that have been argued in the other threads and DEFEATED repeatedly. Leave this thread and go hide back under your bridge, oh king of trolls.
Stop trying to rally up another firestorm over things that have already been proved against you and the countless others that argued for 20 pages to get you morons to understand the most basic of logical arguments.
so back to attacking people instead of bringing arguments?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 13:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: StrokeRD01
I thank you all for your criticism or support. But debating weather or not the afk cloaking issue is valid or not is not what this post is about. I'm simply trying to come up with ideas for solutions that could be implemented to be able to effectively counter it, not to remove it from game. If you aren't posting constructive comments on the topic of what could be created to be an effective counter to the afk cloak issue, please stop posting.
Angry BOB - I like the probe idea. Like the long skill up and expensive, but I think that 1au would be too small a range.. Perhaps max range of 5au would be more effective.. and then scalable like the current probes are down to about .1au for resolution instead of .5au perhaps.
Marra Rin - While nerfing AFK in general may fix the issue in partial, that was not what I was really going for in this posting. I am looking at more of a "cost vs cost" to counter it. For example, a ship that could be lost the same as a cloaking ship could be lost, not just a patch or change of mechanics. I believe the cloaks do work as they are. I am just discussing a way to counter them as there is no true way at the moment once they are cloaked.
Try to stay on focus please.
you know ... if AFK cloaking is not a problem, then your solution is looking for a problem to solve. So discussing if there is an actual problem is pretty much on topic.
and as many others have stated ... the whole AFK cloaking is a not the problem. So you are trying to solve a non existing problem.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 14:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: StrokeRD01
Darius - I have stated the topic and what should be discussed many times. If you feel that your posts have merit please start your own thread on discussing them and stop posting them here.
So far the ideas that have been come up with are -
1. Ship that would employ a module specifically designed to uncloak ships (similar to other role specific ships). Ship could be either a new tech two hull or perhaps a new sub system for the existing tech 3 cruisers. Module would be like a "pulse generator" and would decloak ships with the effect of not being able to cloak again for a small amount of time.
I personally like the idea of a new form of large command ship, perhaps tech 2 based on the tier 3 hulls. Give it the ability to equip the module and some form of remote repairing or remote ecm? Not much damage because its a support ship, not a mission runner.
2. Implement some form of new probe that allows the finding of cloaked frigs. The probe would take longer than traditional probes and might or might not drop you right on top of them. I think that the distance from them should be determined by skills and or type of cloak they employ. Probes could be significantly large and would only fit in a certain type of probe launcher. Allowing you to only carry a few at a time.
Any other thoughts suggestions to creating an in game asset to be an effective counter? Still trying to make the counter to it a "cost vs cost" method not a game mechanic change.
I have to ask questions again (you didnt answer the last one yet but i am patient):
1. cloak itself already comes with penalties. (locking speed, locking delay after decloak, speed penalty under cloak), while some of the specialized ships have bonuses to compensate for the weaknesses, they are usually easily to fight when prepared. (ever seen a recon that likes an heavy neut?)
why would I fit such a gimping module on my ship, if the whole purpose is nullified later on?
2. there are people out there living in 0.0 with a cloaked orca as base. more in wormhole space but also in normal space. should they log off the ship all the time?
3. do you really think the complains of people not prepared/not willing to to prepare for combat justifies such game breaking changes?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 18:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ecoskii
back to the topic...
/signed
current mechanic is dumb and niave. An individual has been afk cloaked in one of our systems for 2 months 23/7 - yup... 60 days non-stop. We know all the tactics but in the end it is easier to just stop using that entire system altogether as there is NO effective long-term counter atm. Make cloaks drop after 2 hours of no-activity or log the character off - either makes sense (and may be a cheap helper to the crap lag-fest that is eve atm) - can't see any downside to these and they are far simpler to implement rather than whole new capabilities/modules/skills
in those 2 months:
- How many kills did he get in your system?
- How many of those kills where against pilots who hadnt been solo? (e.g. ratting/mining in groups)
- If all of the kills had been against solo player, did you introduce some policy that solo mining/ratting is disallowed?
- Do all carebearing people have to be in a common fleet to make helping each other easier?
- Did you adapt your ship fittings to fight the cloaked ship or did you continue to play as before?
|
| |
|