EVE Search - Proposal Re: Cloaking Devices

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Proposal Re: Cloaking Devices

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vily Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:12:00 - [1] In an effort to Balance Ship cloaks, with afk cloaking, and the generally overpowered nature of cloaks, my solution is as follows. Coverts Ops Cloaking, Improved Cloaking Devices II, and prototype cloaking Device I, all receive a 30 Second cycle time ( or 1 minute if your really picky), their re-activation consumption is 1 Liquid Ozone. Meaning, to stay cloaked for 1 hour requires 120 Liquid ozone. Covert Ops Frigates would likely do with a bonus to reduce consumption quantity to near zero. But otherwise there is very little else needed that i can see. Discuss... -
Shieldss Northern Freight Unlimited Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:14:00 - [2] Originally by: Vily In an effort to Balance Ship cloaks, with afk cloaking, and the generally overpowered nature of cloaks, my solution is as follows. Coverts Ops Cloaking, Improved Cloaking Devices II, and prototype cloaking Device I, all receive a 30 Second cycle time ( or 1 minute if your really picky), their re-activation consumption is 1 Liquid Ozone. Meaning, to stay cloaked for 1 hour requires 120 Liquid ozone. Covert Ops Frigates would likely do with a bonus to reduce consumption quantity to near zero. But otherwise there is very little else needed that i can see. Discuss... I like your sig.
Rek Seven Gallente Zandathorn Industries	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:14:00 - [3] why would we need to discuss when the idea has already been suggested and discussed at length?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:23:00 - [4] the faots are flooding the forums with their cloak **. No, this time again. Afk cloaking is fine.
Hambonius Omega GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:27:00 - [5] Also I think CCP should add a game mechanic along the lines of "Solar winds" where a beautiful wave randomly moves through systems and interferes with cloaking devices. Like in that Star Trek movie. Also the wave will effect time.
Emperor Salazar Caldari Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:42:00 - [6] Originally by: Rek Seven why would we need to discuss when the idea has already been suggested and discussed at length? Says the idiot that has a redundant thread posted about the topic in this very subforum.
Rek Seven Gallente Zandathorn Industries	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Emperor Salazar Originally by: Rek Seven why would we need to discuss when the idea has already been suggested and discussed at length? Says the idiot that has a redundant thread posted about the topic in this very subforum. Hello troll. It's friday night, get out of your moms basement and talk some girls you man child.
Emperor Salazar Caldari Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.05.20 16:47:00 - [8] Originally by: Rek Seven Originally by: Emperor Salazar Originally by: Rek Seven why would we need to discuss when the idea has already been suggested and discussed at length? Says the idiot that has a redundant thread posted about the topic in this very subforum. Hello troll. It's friday night, get out of your moms basement and talk some girls you man child. Nice deflection moron.
t'raq mardon	Posted - 2011.05.20 20:03:00 - [9] thats a really cool idea. along those same lines, how about making the fuel work similar to ammo, that way the more advanced cloaks could hold more allowing you to stay cloaked for a longer period of time before having to decloak and "reload". That would mean not using LO but you could make the fuel much smaller anyways since the mechanic would really be in the amount of cycles the cloak could hold. maybe 1, 2, and 3 hours? think having to warp off a gate you are camping for 30 seconds every 3 hours is pretty reasonable. could make the cycle time for cloaks 3 min and the fuel .01m3 so .2m3 for the Prototype, .4 for the Improved and .6 for the cov ops. and that way you could carry around more than enough fuel for extended grieffing. 30m3 would give you 150 hours worth of fuel. Plus it would still allow you to cloak up and go afk if you had to take a **** or go grab some food or something. Thoughts?
Vily Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.20 20:07:00 - [10] i really dont think it needs a differentiation between cloaks. bigger ships can generally hold more cargo and thus stay cloaked longer -
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2011.05.20 20:36:00 - [11] Originally by: Vily In an effort to Balance Ship cloaks, with afk cloaking, and the generally overpowered nature of cloaks, my solution is as follows. Coverts Ops Cloaking, Improved Cloaking Devices II, and prototype cloaking Device I, all receive a 30 Second cycle time ( or 1 minute if your really picky), their re-activation consumption is 1 Liquid Ozone. Meaning, to stay cloaked for 1 hour requires 120 Liquid ozone. Covert Ops Frigates would likely do with a bonus to reduce consumption quantity to near zero. But otherwise there is very little else needed that i can see. Discuss... I say kill two birds with one stone. Make it so that whatever fuel cloaks require is something only found in lo sec (a new ice perhaps). Gives a boost to lo sec and gets rid of afk cloaking. Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
Caliglia	Posted - 2011.05.20 20:36:00 - [12] i just to day asked what afk cloaking is and it seems to be it only works if your a ballless player that dont dare undock if there are any reds in system so my fix for it is free trips to tailand so people can have a free sex change after all we cant have upset people
Tatiana Nixx	Posted - 2011.05.20 22:21:00 - [13] This isn't WoW. If you want a simple game to play, I suggest running off to Azeroth. Cloaking is a valid game mechanic and is used in every science fiction genre movie, book, cartoon, etc. As one Bio i've read says - When you log into Eve, you should be a little bit mad, and nervous. You may lose a ship and pod every time you log on. you should never feel "Safe". "Safe" is for childrens games...
Lush Bight	Posted - 2011.05.21 00:51:00 - [14] I dont think this is a good idea for things that use covops cloaks such as bombers, blockade runners, etc. Furthermore I think the level of uncertainty with AFK cloakers in systems is a nice thing. If a single cloaker is shutting down systems you should look into the multiplayer part of the MMO.
Innominate GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.21 03:42:00 - [15] Edited by: Innominate on 21/05/2011 03:43:03 Originally by: Vily In an effort to Balance Ship cloaks, with afk cloaking, and the generally overpowered nature of cloaks, my solution is as follows. Coverts Ops Cloaking, Improved Cloaking Devices II, and prototype cloaking Device I, all receive a 30 Second cycle time ( or 1 minute if your really picky), their re-activation consumption is 1 Liquid Ozone. Meaning, to stay cloaked for 1 hour requires 120 Liquid ozone. I really like this idea, if not the goal of it. AFK cloaking is a useful tactic for asymmetric warfare and produces enough interesting interactions that it should not be removed. At 1 ozone per 2 minutes cloaked, 100m3 of ozone would last 11 hours. AFK cloaking would remain a viable tactic, just maintaining it for an extended period would require a small logistical effort on the part of the cloaker where currently none is required. Sadly I suspect this is a waste of time because the whole debate over doing anything about AFK cloaking boils down to those who want to be the AFK cloakers vs those who want it removed completely. A middle ground which allows it but makes the cloakers life harder is a non-starter.
t'raq mardon	Posted - 2011.05.21 03:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Vily i really dont think it needs a differentiation between cloaks. bigger ships can generally hold more cargo and thus stay cloaked longer My issue with basing it solely on cargo hold capacity is that cov ops frigs have very limited cargo space. only around 50m3 in a stealth bomber after bombs and that doesn't even consider torps, and LO is .4m3 a piece so that would cause those ships to have a limited amount of cloak time. you mention lowering consumption for cov ops frigs but you suggested making it only consume one unit so cant really lower that to much. forgetting that issue, a mechanic that gives larger ship classes the ability to stay cloaked longer seems rather unpointed, why should the larger ships be able to cloak longer? not tyring to bash you just pointing out that putting that mod on an industrial would allow the indy to stay cloaked for about a month 23/7 before needing to refuel. not to mention making it rather pointless to purchase the T2 mod as the advantages would not change and are already pretty weak. By taking the ships cargo hold out of the equation you achieve the desired effect through almost identical mechanics and actually make a difference between the T1 and T2 mods. Further, it would create a new product. Perhaps the ammo could be made mostly from stont, helping to stimulate non high sec(and there for probably macro) ice mining. I think you have an awesome idea here, just think there are some kinks that need worked out.
t'raq mardon	Posted - 2011.05.21 03:55:00 - [17] Originally by: Innominate Sadly I suspect this is a waste of time because the whole debate over doing anything about AFK cloaking boils down to those who want to be the AFK cloakers vs those who want it removed completely. A middle ground which allows it but makes the cloakers life harder is a non-starter. If you have an idea that would be in this middle ground please make a new thread about it, i would love to hear it. I feel that limiting an afk cloaker to only a day or two before he needs to put forth some effort in order to maintain his presence would be tolerable. It would create an actual weakness for the afk cloaker that could be attacked. sadly i dont think the other side of this arugment will be willing to take anything that weakens afk cloakers in the least. They like being able have complete control, and do not like the idea of actual risking their ship unless they are guaranteed a kill with the only question being whether their target can kill their cheap cyno ship before they lose their exponentially more expensive ratting ship.
Signal11th Versatech Co.	Posted - 2011.05.21 07:30:00 - [18] Edited by: Signal11th on 21/05/2011 07:37:26 Edited by: Signal11th on 21/05/2011 07:37:00 cloaks are not broken just lazy 0.0 ratters who cant be arsed to work for their isk. Cloaks don't need changing.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.21 08:28:00 - [19] cloaking is not "overpowered". What is this wow? A person cloaked is limited as to his activity. Overpower would be if he could kill you and there was nothing you could do about it.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.21 08:31:00 - [20] Quote: If you have an idea that would be in this middle ground please make a new thread about it, soliciting spam of the same topic over and over.....all these threads need to be locked.
Vily Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.21 16:06:00 - [21] Originally by: Barbara Nichole Quote: If you have an idea that would be in this middle ground please make a new thread about it, soliciting spam of the same topic over and over.....all these threads need to be locked. not really -
Niko Lorenzio United Eve Directorate	Posted - 2011.05.21 16:21:00 - [22] I propose... ban the next person that proposes another way to "fix" afk cloaking. Cmon people, seriously how many posts can you make about the same damn thing THAT AINT BROKE. Dont like AFK cloaking? Move to high sec. If you got no balls, dont live in 0.0 Here's another idea... turn all systems into 1.0, and remove the wardecs flaw. This is EVE, theres a risk involved the moment you hit the undock button, and I'd like to stay it that way.
t'raq mardon	Posted - 2011.05.22 03:02:00 - [23] Originally by: Niko Lorenzio ...This is EVE, theres a risk involved the moment you hit the undock button, and I'd like to stay it that way. I'd like it to start being that way for afk cloakers. Currently, as long as you have a cloaking device fitted to your ship there is absolutely no risk for you at all.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.05.22 08:47:00 - [24] Originally by: t'raq mardon Currently, as long as you have a cloaking device fitted to your ship there is absolutely no risk for you at all. Wrong. You must at least be honest when you reply and try not to be too emotional. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Vily Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.05.23 04:27:00 - [25] there must be balance in all things. Without it, you have something we call "overpowered" -
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.05.23 07:55:00 - [26] Originally by: Vily there must be balance in all things. Without it, you have something we call "overpowered" That's why people AFK cloak, because at the moment local is overpowered. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Morpheus Mishima Caldari	Posted - 2011.05.23 09:09:00 - [27] Thats right. Cloaking is not broken, local is. Try living in a WH for a while, you won't care if there might be cloakers about after a few days. And you'd be forced out of your silly fully insurable battleship of PVE doom.
Ivona Frios	Posted - 2011.05.23 10:07:00 - [28] I think that nothing should be changed about cloaking, we should leave it as it is now.
Varacity	Posted - 2011.05.23 10:59:00 - [29] Originally by: Tatiana Nixx ... Cloaking is a valid game mechanic and is used in every science fiction genre movie, book, cartoon, etc. ... you should never feel "Safe". "Safe" is for childrens games... afk cloakers should not feel safe either, by your same logic.
Varacity	Posted - 2011.05.23 11:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Vily bigger ships can generally hold more cargo and thus stay cloaked longer you could also make fuel consumption proportional to sig. radius, so that small ships use less fuel than large ships

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.