| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
   |
Posted - 2011.05.23 09:10:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 09:10:29
The problem: Number of ships invulnerable to scan has been steadily increasing lately. I find ship being able to do anything useful with efficiency close to the scannable setups while staying invulnerable to scan bad practice. Unscannable ships are commonly used for safe PvE or gang boosting; although there may be other usages, they're neglectable.
Proposed solution is described in this thread:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1515431
If you agree with presense of a problem and/or proposed solution - please vote for this thread.
_____
EVE Fit |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 09:12:00 -
[2]
/supporting own proposal
_____
EVE Fit |
Captain Nares
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 10:44:00 -
[3]
Agree :)
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 11:00:00 -
[4]
Not entirely sold on your solution, but on it being a problem? Absolutely.
|
Plastic Dreams
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 11:27:00 -
[5]
I support this. I have no problem with afk-cloakers or whatever, because they are cloaked and therefore shouldn't be seen/scanned. However, I often see unprobableT3s used to boost PVP gangs; not only making Fleet Command ships fairly redundant, but I don't see why anything should be able to stay uncloaked but still invulnerable to scanner probes.
T3s has made Command Ships quite redundant in many situations (As they generally do the same things a bit better, at much less of the training time, but at a slightly higher cost), I think CS' should at least be superior in, well, boosting the gang.
|
Paul Clancy
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 12:49:00 -
[6]
Just support.
In fact, I'm using un-scannable configurations too. But, I think, there must be some real competition between scanner-man and 'unscannable' man. OP proposition isn't ideal but fine as first step in right direction.
(maybe, some active decoys? or stuff)
|
Seamus Donohue
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:16:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 23/05/2011 13:17:17
Not supported.
For unscannable fleetboosters, just apply a penalty to the Warfare Processor subsystems that reduces the sensor strength of a Strategic Cruiser for each gang link module that's fit. Alternately, you can make a very strong flat penalty to the sensor strength just for having a Warfare Processor subsystem. In either case, a sufficiently strong penalty will make the Strategic Cruiser probable.
Regarding unprobable PvE ships, I'm under the impression that PvE fits are generally useless in PvP. Are there any effective PvP fits that can also effectively solo missions? ...and in what levels of missions? The reason I ask is because if PvP fits can't run missions solo, then missions should be changed so that PvP fits can run missions solo before we go breaking or weakening unprobable PvE ships.
__________________________________________________
Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:23:00 -
[8]
Only cloaked ships should be unscannable. If you actively affect the universe, you should be able to be probed out. I'm fine with such ships being much harder than regular vessels to scan down, but it shouldn't be impossible.
Support for the general idea.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:30:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The reason I ask is because if PvP fits can't run missions solo
You're just wrong. Any mission which is doable in nonstop-cap PvE setup is doable in PvP setup (cap booster, yeah). In fact, some of the lowsec mission runners i know use PvP setups to run lvl 4's.
_____
EVE Fit |
Calana Humane
HighTech Production
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 15:31:00 -
[10]
support
|
|
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 16:40:00 -
[11]
Supporting a nerf to riskless PVE in null and low sec.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
EdwardNardella
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 02:57:00 -
[12]
These ships can easily be located in much less than 15 min in a familiar system if you care to put in the effort.
Not supported.
CCRES is recruiting pilots who want to live in WSpace/Wormholes. Fill out an application here! |
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 04:34:00 -
[13]
There is so much whine and tears, it must continue. Not supported.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 06:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 13:44:17
Originally by: Seamus Donohue
The reason I ask is because if PvP fits can't run missions solo
You're just wrong. Any mission which is doable in nonstop-cap PvE setup is doable in PvP setup (cap booster, yeah). In fact, some of the lowsec mission runners i know use PvP setups to run lvl 4's. Recent changes to missions introduced ability to use such pvp module as MWD on all missions - for ships like ac-capbooster mach it's almost finalized pvp-setup.
For about 1/3rd the income you get when you run lvl 4 missions in high sec yes.
Useful unprobable mission setups also need a way to run gatecamps, get a t3 and look how much dps it does when unprobable, covert ops cloak and interdiction nullifier. It is pretty close to zero.
You can kill an unprobable mission runner with some luck at a gate, you cannot kill him when he moves to high sec because otherwise he has to press a scan button every 10 seconds.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 07:56:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 25/05/2011 08:00:43
Originally by: EdwardNardella
These ships can easily be located in much less than 15 min in a familiar system if you care to put in the effort.
Not supported.
I'm gonna bring unprobable ship in the any system you like. If you find it within 15 minutes - you won. If you don't - i won.
I suggest entry fee at least @ 1 bil with someone like Chribba as guarantee.
The best result i'm aware of - about 30 minutes, personally i can do it in about 2 hours (not much experience, yeah).
Originally by: Furb Killer
Useful unprobable mission setups also need a way to run gatecamps, get a t3 and look how much dps it does when unprobable, covert ops cloak and interdiction nullifier. It is pretty close to zero.
You can kill an unprobable mission runner with some luck at a gate, you cannot kill him when he moves to high sec because otherwise he has to press a scan button every 10 seconds.
In certain conditions (which are heavily exploited by agentrunners) you don't need to go through gates. Just bring couple of twinks into the hub with 3+ agents - and you're done.
And, yes, this topic concerns only unscannable setups; cloaks and interdiction nullifiers are out of its scope. Please consider only unscannable vs scannable setups here, leaving interdiction nullifier and covops cloak for other topics.
_____
EVE Fit |
Cyberus
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 19:58:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Cyberus on 30/05/2011 19:58:53
I will only support this idea on one codition!
If you scaned down that PVE ship and warp to the guy to finish him ( since he is already get good damage hit from NPC ) all room instatly switch agro to you ( just lke sleepers do.)
Wanna easy kills? Suck it!
=====
* Your signature file is broken. Please use one that will display - Fallout |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 05:39:00 -
[17]
I believe CCP will make mission NPCs smarter and a more powerful than easily killed dummies. If they will, NPCs will switch aggro, fine.
By the way, even sleepers don't always switch aggro, depending on the ships used in anomaly and tackler shiptype. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 07:46:00 -
[18]
On grid boosting only, takes care of T3 shenanigans.
Hard limit of 1.0 on the R/S ratio, takes care of unprobeable missioneers.
- Complete safety should require a person not to play the game (ie. docked). Setting the max achievable ratio at 1 should make them hard enough to find so that they have ample time to notice probes closing in.
Asking CCP to add new variables is just begging for game-breaking bugs to be introduced, so would prefer not to.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 09:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Only cloaked ships should be unscannable. If you actively affect the universe, you should be able to be probed out. I'm fine with such ships being much harder than regular vessels to scan down, but it shouldn't be impossible.
Support for the general idea.
This.
________________________
CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 11:15:00 -
[20]
All I see here is wambulance this wambulance that. First off missioners, or anyone for that manner shouldn't be easy to probe out, period. I believe that the current system, aside from unprobable ships is too easy for people to probe other's down and attack them. Hell it usually takes 30 seconds to 1 minute to find someone. That is too easy. Here is a bargain for ya, we can get rid of unprobable ships as soon as it's not insanely easy to scan down other ships. Does that sound like a good compromise for ya? Whether you think so or not these missioners are taking some form of risk, and this is catching them at stations and/or gates. Catch a t3 ship undocking at a station and you pretty much have it made, so don't fool yourself over the fact that these missioners aren't risking a damned thing. Otherwise you just sound like a damned old fool who needs the wambulance to come and pick him up, before he drowns in his own pool of drool infested with bitterness and lies.
|
|
|
Packe
Minmatar
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 12:35:00 -
[21]
Not supported. You can find unscannable ships if you put some effort in.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
draketrain
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 13:44:00 -
[22]
sup
|
Pink Marshmellow
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:38:00 -
[23]
I cannot support this. It is working as intended, why else do you think CCP made it so that if Sensor strength is 1.05 time sig radius it makes it difficult to get scanned. If you did away with this then you made a set of defensive subs for all t3s useless, and we already have enough of those.
Unprobability gimps the ship just like cloak does, so I don't see the reason to nerf this.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 06:01:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 02/06/2011 06:01:10
Originally by: Pink Marshmellow
I cannot support this. It is working as intended
Per CCP, it's not working as intended:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1509071&page=22#653
_____
EVE Fit |
Jonan Hannon
Gallente
Kerensky Initiatives
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 07:06:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 02/06/2011 06:01:10
Originally by: Pink Marshmellow
I cannot support this. It is working as intended
Per CCP, it's not working as intended:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1509071&page=22#653
Per my ass, one throwaway statement by CCP does not a definitive comment make.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 07:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jonan Hannon
Per my ass, one throwaway statement by CCP does not a definitive comment make.
We will see. In time :)
_____
EVE Fit |
Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 08:04:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 25/05/2011 09:15:09
Originally by: EdwardNardella
These ships can easily be located in much less than 15 min in a familiar system if you care to put in the effort.
Not supported.
I'm gonna bring unprobable ship in the any system you like. If you find it within 15 minutes - you won. If you don't - i won. *snip*
I don't really get 'unprobeable, and tend to assume you either do not know how to use scan probes or haven't trained the skills, but I'll address this comment anyway.
Use your DScan. It's really very simple if you have any idea how.
Warp to a celestial and align to the sun; stop ship, drop 1 Core Scanner probe and 4 Combat Probes, and cloak up if you have it/need it. (Alternatively you can sit at the Sun and look at a Celestial, which will give you better Dscan coverage, but your reference to the Solar Map will be harder to define.)
Hit solar system map, drop your Core Scanner probe on the Sun with 32 AU, and 4 Combat probes in a diamond covering the system with 32 AU overlapping coverage. Cycle your probes and drop the map.
Max Dscan range and hit 360 degree radius, then cycle the dscan. See what pops up.
Check your probe results for anomalies and note their location with relation to your ship and the sun, using the Solar System Map and moving back to ship view.
Rotate your view, (not your ship as it's your directional reference point), towards the anomalies that have ships in general area and decrease the Dscan radius to 30 degrees if those ships are available from your location.
Pinpoint which anomalies the ships are in this way, then fly to the anomaly with the 'unprobeable'/probeable ship.
If it's a Mag or something, then just scan that down, and fly to it. Problem solved.
If the ship is just sitting in a safe spot, then just scan it down. I'm pretty sure if I can scan down a drone, you can scan down an uncloaked Loki.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 09:46:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 02/06/2011 09:46:57
You seem to underestimate my ability to find ships fast using direct scanner + probes and/or purely direct scanner. The comment you quoted actually told 'i don't believe it's possible to find ship using just directional scanner within 15 minutes'. Yes, i know how, but also i know how much time it takes, even for person who's extremely experienced at it.
Also you seem to miss understanding of how current scan system works. No, you can't probe down unprobeable loki at a safe spot.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 21:11:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 02/06/2011 21:12:31
NOT SUPPORTED.
Pirate scum is doing their low-life mission invading too much already as it is. If people are willing to fit mods to be unprobable, then that's their prerogative.
- You have mods and skills to probe people out;
- Others have mods and skills to defend themselves against that.
And that's how it should be.
--
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 21:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
On grid boosting only, takes care of T3 shenanigans.
Hard limit of 1.0 on the R/S ratio, takes care of unprobeable missioneers.
- Complete safety should require a person not to play the game (ie. docked). Setting the max achievable ratio at 1 should make them hard enough to find so that they have ample time to notice probes closing in.
Asking CCP to add new variables is just begging for game-breaking bugs to be introduced, so would prefer not to.
Translated: "I'm a whiny pirate who can't stand that my potential victims found a way to defend themselves, boo-hoo. Please, CCP, fix it for me."
You are doing the exact same thing as carebears asking CCP to put a stop to highsec suicide ganking, but then in reverse. Shame on you, and all your followers!
--
|
|
|
Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 03:34:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 02/06/2011 09:46:57
You seem to underestimate my ability to find ships fast using direct scanner + probes and/or purely direct scanner. The comment you quoted actually told 'i don't believe it's possible to find ship using just directional scanner within 15 minutes'. Yes, i know how, but also i know how much time it takes, even for person who's extremely experienced at it.
Also you seem to miss understanding of how current scan system works. No, you can't probe down unprobeable loki at a safe spot.
Care to clarify what makes a Loki unprobeable. I have scanned down a warrior I drone that someone left sitting in a deadspace pocket which had since expired, bookmarked it, and warped in and picked it up.
I find it hard to believe that a Loki without a cloak could be unprobeable considering there are no modules or implants which are designed to defeat scan probes. And sure as Hek, they don't have that small of a Sig radius, even with the implants.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 04:14:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Mars Theran
[
I find it hard to believe that a Loki without a cloak could be unprobeable considering there are no modules or implants which are designed to defeat scan probes. And sure as Hek, they don't have that small of a Sig radius, even with the implants.
Loki has base sig rad of 150m too, right? A few Conjunctive Ladar ECCM Scanning Array I's would do it.
--
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 04:31:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
- You have mods and skills to probe people out;
- Others have mods and skills to defend themselves against that.
- You have mods and skills to kill NPCs or boost fleet
- Players should be able to stop NPC genocide and fleet boosting regardless of number ECCMs you have fit and/or activated
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 04:41:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Ranka Mei
- You have mods and skills to probe people out;
- Others have mods and skills to defend themselves against that.
- You have mods and skills to kill NPCs or boost fleet
- Players should be able to stop NPC genocide and fleet boosting regardless of number ECCMs you have fit and/or activated
The part you're missing is that I need to fit all those ECCM mods at the expensive of something useful I could have fitted instead. So, my ship already can't reach its full DPS/tank potential, just because pirates exist who invade missions.
For every offence, EVE should (and does) offer a Defence: you probe, I defend. That's as balanced as it gets. It's ridiculous that CCP should hardwire it so offenders can always win.
--
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 05:15:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
That's as balanced as it gets.
Hell, no.
Originally by: Ranka Mei
It's ridiculous that CCP should hardwire it so offenders can always win.
Ridiculous just for you, maybe.
By fitting ECCMs you lose tank; you don't need overtank for l4s (and with eccms tank is still sufficient), so you can keep all the rigors and BCSs if you wish. This already has been discussed in this or linked topic, please check.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 05:37:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Hell, no.
Just saying 'Hell, no.' doesn't make it any less balanced.
Quote:
Originally by: Ranka Mei
It's ridiculous that CCP should hardwire it so offenders can always win.
Ridiculous just for you, maybe.
By fitting ECCMs you lose tank; you don't need overtank for l4s (and with eccms tank is still sufficient), so you can keep all the rigors and BCSs if you wish. This already has been discussed in this or linked topic, please check.
What should be enough to fit to survive is irrelevant. The issue is that I already need to sacrifice dearly, just to defend myself from being scanned down. That sacrifice alone IS the balance between you fitting mods to scan, and me chosing to fit mods to defend against such scan. And, since CCP always favors the aggressor as it is, I already need to fit more mods to defend myself than you need to fit to scan me.
So, what's next? You're gonna petition to do away with warp stabilizers, because, god forbid, someone might outfit your points on him?
--
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 05:46:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 03/06/2011 05:46:40
Originally by: Ranka Mei
What should be enough to fit to survive is irrelevant. The issue is that I already need to sacrifice dearly, just to defend myself from being scanned down. That sacrifice alone IS the balance between you fitting mods to scan, and me chosing to fit mods to defend against such scan. And, since CCP always favors the aggressor as it is, I already need to fit more mods to defend myself than you need to fit to scan me.
Your arguments are countered by the fact that such ships are keeping isk/hour efficiency (it is irrelevant for you, but not for me - remember, still the same offensive capabilities and tank enough for l4s) and ridiculous price of ECCM mods. If making ship unscannable would cost +2 bils - noone would whine here.
Originally by: Ranka Mei
So, what's next? You're gonna petition to do away with warp stabilizers, because, god forbid, someone might outfit your points on him?
Warpstabs can be countered by additional points/bubble, unscannable setup cannot be countered by additional probes/probers. So no, they're not going to be next.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 06:06:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Ranka Mei
So, what's next? You're gonna petition to do away with warp stabilizers, because, god forbid, someone might outfit your points on him?
Warpstabs can be countered by additional points/bubble, unscannable setup cannot be countered by additional probes/probers. So no, they're not going to be next.
A single ship can only fit so many ECCM mods, whereas you can bring an entire swarm of probers; so it's entirely reasonable there's a ceiling above which you cannot go -- and that said ceiling be lower than what a single ship can defend against.
See, bringing more points at a gate is fair: you then simply outpoint the ship you're attacking. Matter of superior numbers. But with scanning it's different: it's basically -- to stay in the same terminology -- like putting un uncounterable point on the entire system from many AU's away. Where's the equity in that? If that weren't counterable, you'd always win. Which is of course what you want: people should not be able to defend themselves against a scan-down.
Seriously, if CCP is going to rig the game in such a manner that pirates always win, then I will seriously need to rethink whether EVE is still worth playing. And no, you can't have my stuff.
--
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 06:20:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 03/06/2011 06:21:18
Originally by: Ranka Mei
A single ship can only fit so many ECCM mods, whereas you can bring an entire swarm of probers; so it's entirely reasonable there's a ceiling above which you cannot go -- and that said ceiling be lower than what a single ship can defend against.
I can't bring.
Originally by: Ranka Mei
See, bringing more points at a gate is fair: you then simply outpoint the ship you're attacking. Matter of superior numbers. But with scanning it's different
Can you answer why it's different?
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Which is of course what you want: people should not be able to defend themselves against a scan-down.
Exactly. People should defend themselves using a bit more interesting ways from gameplay's perspective.
If you'll leave when ccp makes each and every ship probeable - i won't cry.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 06:43:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 03/06/2011 06:43:54
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Ranka Mei
See, bringing more points at a gate is fair: you then simply outpoint the ship you're attacking. Matter of superior numbers. But with scanning it's different
Can you answer why it's different?
Already did explain: the difference being that you can do a system wide scan, from a huge distance, with absolutely no risk or danger to yourself whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Which is of course what you want: people should not be able to defend themselves against a scan-down.
Exactly. People should defend themselves using a bit more interesting ways from gameplay's perspective.
I could say the exact same thing in reverse: people should be able to attack others using a bit more interesting ways than just doing a system wide scan from afar and jumping on defenseless missioners not fitted for PvP.
Quote:
Quote:
If you'll leave when ccp makes each and every ship probeable - i won't cry.
Of course you won't. Let's just hope CCP has the calm of mind to think it thru properly and won't give in to every pirate's petition for 'More powerrrr!'
And if it's unprobeable T3's that do boosting you're upset about, CCP could simply make it so you cannot fit any ECCM mod next to Warfare Link mods and/or Command Processors. Problem solved. But even there, what's the harm, really? You fleet them, the enemy does; again, perfect balance.
--
|
|
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 11:44:00 -
[41]
If you undock you should be also probeable in sensible time.
We could also have honor system or something if we have unprobeable ships.
|
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 12:28:00 -
[42]
In the name of play balance, there should be no 'invulnerable setups'. No absolutes. No insurmountable tactic that is unbeatable.
If the system allows for these situations, then the system is broken and needs fixing
In these bad play balance situations, I am reminded of the starcraft zerg rush. Before blizzard fixed it by taking the number of starting larvae around a zerg hachery from 4 to 3. All zerg players cried foul. But the truth of the matter is that without the change, zerg players employing the zergling rush tactic was unbeatable.
I support this.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 14:42:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 03/06/2011 14:42:17
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
In the name of play balance, there should be no 'invulnerable setups'. No absolutes. No insurmountable tactic that is unbeatable.
Exactly. Being scanned down should not be an insurmountable tactic that is unbeatable: people should be able to defend themselves against it. In the name of play balance, please don't give pirates an 'I always win' button.
--
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 18:53:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
To this I would like to add the rationale. Probing down is essentialy a form of ECM. For every ECM there should exist the possibility of ECCM. Simple as that.
I like your example. Also i like how you blatantly missed that even with full meds of ECCMs you still can be jammed, lol.
_____
EVE Fit |
Tiny Mongo
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 06:35:00 -
[45]
Basically you are going about it all wrong. If you want to catch any unprobable T3 you get them at a gate or at a station undock. The counterexample in the linked thread for 'not giving up much' also can be caught by just about any self respecting frig pilot on a gate and murdered in seconds by his gang. Honestly if you think a ship with 10k raw hp, a 7 second align time, and a 200m sig radius is invulnerable you are seriously mistaken. Don't believe me? fly that Tengu from Ossogur into Amamake on a weekend and see if it is "invulnerable" like you think it is.
If you choose to gank mission runners you should gank them at their most vulnerable - on a gate.
While I like that the proposal is more balanced than most I've seen I still cannot support this idea since I do not see being unprobable as being a problem.
As an aside I feel there are much more important issues to tackle - i.e. Faction war and how faction frigs have obsoleted half the T2 frigs in the game, Sovereignty post Dominion, Angel ships and how they are comparatively superior to there pirate faction brethren in most respects, Supers and how they have taken over the roll that used to be filled by normal caps and support fleets, The inability for newer players to ever be able to compete in the T2 markets at the level of those owning T2 BPO's, the terrible state of POS's, Epic Arc iteration, Corporation roles, balance of ore distribution among the 4 empires high sec, separation of the empires, redesign of the T3 cruiser class as a whole - legion and CS's need I say more?, etc.
|
Charmary
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 14:34:00 -
[46]
Try live in 0.0 in hostile enviroment.
Its not so easy.
You need a 2 bil ship if you want do missions effectively.
This ship die in 30 sec in PVP.
In a hostile local everyone hunting your pimp ship, try shoot bump at station, try scan down safes etc.
You need jump through gate? If you are a pro pvp-er you know, you can catch every t3.
So using gate is deadly move.
You need logistic.. Just try it ... Your cyno shooted podded,your carrier bumped, maybe hotdropped.
Its doable but not easy.
So living in a hostile enviroment its pain in the ass.
Unscannable ships the only way you can do it, and its hard style living.
Unscannable topics are whining because cant shot us, and we are concurennce in market.
So whos whining?:D
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 19:57:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 04/06/2011 19:58:08
Originally by: Tiny Mongo
If you choose to gank mission runners you should gank them at their most vulnerable - on a gate.
Wise mission runner doesn't jump into nearby system if he noticed hostile activity. If he wants to risk, he'll fit covops cloak and interdiction nullifier.
Originally by: Charmary
You need a 2 bil ship if you want do missions effectively.
You're wrong.
[Tengu, Tengu fit]
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Conjunctive Gravimetric ECCM Scanning Array I
Conjunctive Gravimetric ECCM Scanning Array I
Conjunctive Gravimetric ECCM Scanning Array I
Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster
Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Originally by: Charmary
In a hostile local everyone hunting your pimp ship, try shoot bump at station, try scan down safes etc.
You need jump through gate? If you are a pro pvp-er you know, you can catch every t3.
So using gate is deadly move.
You need logistic.. Just try it ... Your cyno shooted podded,your carrier bumped, maybe hotdropped.
Its doable but not easy.
So living in a hostile enviroment its pain in the ass.
You're telling it a person who's been living in low/zerosec since day zero. Also yes, i exploited unprobeable setups myself, and only after comparing usual setups and unprobeable setups i came to conclusion how 'unscannable' feature is broken, imbalanced and boring.
Originally by: Charmary
Unscannable ships the only way you can do it, and its hard style living.
Hell, no. It may be the only way for you, but it's just because you're not experienced at all at it and can't handle living in hostile system without using exploits.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.04 20:46:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Hell, no. It may be the only way for you, but it's just because you're not experienced at all at it and can't handle living in hostile system without using exploits.
As usual, you got it figured backwards. It is YOU who can't handle people being able to defend themselves in a hostile environment. And when it turns out they can, you scream foul, and call it an 'exploit' even, LOL. You want the semblance of a balanced game... as long as you and your probes can always win.
--
|
Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 00:44:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Mars Theran on 05/06/2011 00:47:48
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
In the name of play balance, there should be no 'invulnerable setups'. No absolutes. No insurmountable tactic that is unbeatable.
If the system allows for these situations, then the system is broken and needs fixing
In these bad play balance situations, I am reminded of the starcraft zerg rush. Before blizzard fixed it by taking the number of starting larvae around a zerg hachery from 4 to 3. All zerg players cried foul. But the truth of the matter is that without the change, zerg players employing the zergling rush tactic was unbeatable.
I support this.
It's not an invulnerable setup unless it enters combat, kills 15 ships solo, and flies away without a scratch.
What we're talking here, is a ship that can't even solo vs. solo PvP unless it seriously outclasses it's agressor, and uses threat reduction to survive rather than aggressive tactics.
F-35
F-22
Stealth Bomber
Any of those ring a bell? This is real technology and completely feasible, and in the case of the F-22 it even has high threat potential.
You whine and cry because of nothing more, than wanting to be able to kill everything and have no one escape unscathed. This isn't StarCraft, and if it were the stealthy race would lose do to inaction. Even here it amounts to much the same most of the time.
I really hate the thought that EVE should devolve to hack and slash gameplay with no other content or options. Just PvP all the time, everywhere. We should just put permanent bubbles on all the gates with stasis fields out to 30 km so you can fit all gank and just pop anyone who comes through.
edit: Yeah, I forgot. The ECCM thingy is a joke and shouldn't exist in game with it's current effects. I'd remove that and do away with unprobeable setups just for the sake of realism. What we need is a real module that is properly defined and functions accordingly. I never really caught on to the ECCM thingy before it was mentioned in this thread, and no wonder why. It doesn't make the slighest sense.
What we have is a module that stabilizes the sensor package on a ship, and makes them more resistant to ECM doing the opposite, and shielding the signature of a ship against probing. That is actually a form of ECM, not the other way around.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 02:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Mars Theran
You whine and cry because of nothing more, than wanting to be able to kill everything and have no one escape unscathed. This isn't StarCraft, and if it were the stealthy race would lose do to inaction. Even here it amounts to much the same most of the time.
I really hate the thought that EVE should devolve to hack and slash gameplay with no other content or options. Just PvP all the time, everywhere. We should just put permanent bubbles on all the gates with stasis fields out to 30 km so you can fit all gank and just pop anyone who comes through.
^^ This. Finally a guy who gets it.
Quote:
edit: Yeah, I forgot. The ECCM thingy is a joke and shouldn't exist in game with it's current effects. I'd remove that and do away with unprobeable setups just for the sake of realism. What we need is a real module that is properly defined and functions accordingly. I never really caught on to the ECCM thingy before it was mentioned in this thread, and no wonder why. It doesn't make the slighest sense.
What we have is a module that stabilizes the sensor package on a ship, and makes them more resistant to ECM doing the opposite, and shielding the signature of a ship against probing. That is actually a form of ECM, not the other way around.
The Gravimetric Backup Array already does as you describe: it's just not potent enough on its own; and it's not ECM, as it's totally passive, and just increases your Gravimetric sensor strength.
Also, I don't see much use for a single 'unprobability' mod. Currently you need skills, the right ship, and some expensive implants (to do it comfortably). I don't want every Drake to fit it (and before you ask, yes, I've flown a Drake for the longest time). I believe unprobability should remain within the realm of T3 ships only.
If CCP were to nerf T3 ships in such a fashion that you wouldn't be able to fit ECCM next to Warfare Link mods, to boost remotely, I would be okay with that. Because, frankly, being unprobable AND being able to boost remotely, that does seem a bit overpowered: we do, after all, not allow cloaky ships to have activate mods running either. But mission runners, using unprobability solely for defensive purposes, I see that as a viable, and balanced tactic to try and stay alive against a universe otherwise rigged to favor the suicide ganker.
--
|
|
|
Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 02:35:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Mars Theran
You whine and cry because of nothing more, than wanting to be able to kill everything and have no one escape unscathed. This isn't StarCraft, and if it were the stealthy race would lose do to inaction. Even here it amounts to much the same most of the time.
I really hate the thought that EVE should devolve to hack and slash gameplay with no other content or options. Just PvP all the time, everywhere. We should just put permanent bubbles on all the gates with stasis fields out to 30 km so you can fit all gank and just pop anyone who comes through.
^^ This. Finally a guy who gets it.
Quote:
edit: Yeah, I forgot. The ECCM thingy is a joke and shouldn't exist in game with it's current effects. I'd remove that and do away with unprobeable setups just for the sake of realism. What we need is a real module that is properly defined and functions accordingly. I never really caught on to the ECCM thingy before it was mentioned in this thread, and no wonder why. It doesn't make the slighest sense.
What we have is a module that stabilizes the sensor package on a ship, and makes them more resistant to ECM doing the opposite, and shielding the signature of a ship against probing. That is actually a form of ECM, not the other way around.
The Gravimetric Backup Array already does as you describe: it's just not potent enough on its own; and it's not ECM, as it's totally passive, and just increases your Gravimetric sensor strength.
Also, I don't see much use for a single 'unprobability' mod. Currently you need skills, the right ship, and some expensive implants (to do it comfortably). I don't want every Drake to fit it (and before you ask, yes, I've flown a Drake for the longest time). I believe unprobability should remain within the realm of T3 ships only.
If CCP were to nerf T3 ships in such a fashion that you wouldn't be able to fit ECCM next to Warfare Link mods, to boost remotely, I would be okay with that. Because, frankly, being unprobable AND being able to boost remotely, that does seem a bit overpowered: we do, after all, not allow cloaky ships to have activate mods running either. But mission runners, using unprobability solely for defensive purposes, I see that as a viable, and balanced tactic to try and stay alive against a universe otherwise rigged to favor the suicide ganker.
I was thinking more along the lines of taking the ECCM mod as it is, removing the silly sensor boosting, (which doesn't even work vs. NPC frig's in level 1 combat missions), changing it's name to 'Sensor Masking Electronics Package' or something for Mid, and 'Stealth Hull Reconfiguration' or something for Low, then adding an appropriate description to match, and showing actual calculable effect for what it does. That would make sense.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 04:33:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mars Theran
F-35
F-22
Stealth Bomber
Any of those ring a bell? This is real technology and completely feasible, and in the case of the F-22 it even has high threat potential.
It is feasible and detectable. Ever heard of 'radar cross-section' term? Any of these planes can be detected and locked, depends on the distance, environment conditions, plane radar cross-section and power of radar array. Let alone using other methods - like heat and optical detection.
It's ongoing war between poison and remedy, where nobody wins. I don't see any competition in eve.
As for special module for making ship less/un-scannable - it should cost vast amounts of money, like someone mentioned here 2 bil, and take up significant amount of ship resources. Because in its current form ECCMs are too much benefit for ridiculous cost. And if you mission run in hostile local, there's no point in using scannable ships at all. I don't see how game can be balanced in such conditions.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 04:36:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
As for special module for making ship less/un-scannable - it should cost vast amounts of money, like someone mentioned here 2 bil,
Only if your probes cost you 2 bil too. :)
--
|
Charmary
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 12:13:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Charmary
Unscannable ships the only way you can do it, and its hard style living.
Hell, no. It may be the only way for you, but it's just because you're not experienced at all at it and can't handle living in hostile system without using exploits.
Its seems so you dont know how it works.
We hunted misssioners in 0.0 for years. What we can scan that will die.
We scan anything less than 1 min. The prey will never seen a probe on the scan.
We killed several unscannable t3!! too. Scanned down safes with his unactive eccm modules.
Scanned down exits with directional scanners.
We can scan your site and sit in with alts. We can wait you everywhere.
We can use drag bubbles. We can open covert cynos.
You see only one hostile at local, never seen his ship , never seen probes. You die.
If you are in a faction ship, you will definetly die, faction ship our favorite prey.
If you are in a bs, not bad.
If you are in a drake? fun to kill.
If you are in a unscannable t3, we will try kill you.
We can watch you several days to watch your spots, watch your online time, where you go when.
If you make one fault, you die.
If you know how this things work, and you are unscannable and you are very careful, you will live. And you deserve it.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 13:16:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Charmary
Its seems so you dont know how it works.
We hunted misssioners in 0.0 for years. What we can scan that will die.
Again, tthe best thing you can do is not letting mission runner to complete the mission. It's draw, when you waste your time (you = gang of 10+ ppl, i suppose) and mission runner wastes his. If you gank him - you win, if he finishes mission - you lose. Basically, unscan makes mission runner to always win.
If you can kill somebody who sits at the mission for 1+ hour and lets you scan him down w/o noticing probes - it's his own problems.
There're even ways to exclude any undock gank risks (and no, it's not undock bookmark + interdiction nullifier), whcih, combined with unscannable setup, make your ship purely invulnerable.
_____
EVE Fit |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 15:14:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 05/06/2011 15:14:51
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Basically, unscan makes mission runner to always win.
Basically, scan makes gankers always win.
There's no weapon in EVE, be it warp-scramblers, webbers, ECM, etc., that allows operation across the vast space of an entire solar system. Arguably -- when it comes to player ships -- probes are thus already overpowered as it is. You certainly shouldn't be allowed to receive your extra "I always win from across the other end of the solar system!" button, though.
--
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.06.05 16:09:00 -
[57]
All those electronics crammed into one ship must surely interfere with other systems:
Introduce deviance (similar to what applies for warping to a probe result). Increases as ship approaches 'unprobeable' status until it in effect cancels out the warp to zero feature (0-15km deviance).
How is that for drawback 
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |