| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
202
   |
Posted - 2012.12.31 22:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Best suggestion i've seen (it wasn't here): Remove cloaked ships from local. They still get their intel, and you know for sure that if someone is in local then they are a threat. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
203
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 20:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Still nobody has discussed the cloaking-removes-you-from-local idea (I guess it was Narrel's idea originally? /shrug).
1. While cloaked, they don't show up in local, so there is no overt threat.
2. While uncloaked, they DO show up in local. Because of 1, you know for a FACT that they are a threat and can respond accordingly.
3. It allows cloaking to be used offensively, adding gameplay value.
While I really like the option of scanning down cloaked ships, this has the virtue of simplicity. An hour or two of coding and boom, it's done and can be schlepped to the test server. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
204
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 02:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This is accurate regarding nothing needing to be done. The system is in balance, regardless of all complaints that it makes the l
...
With balance currently present, I can state with fair conviction that the PvE experience won't become less dangerous under changes that remain balanced, and the care bear side do not want to accept this.
A good discussion of the psychology involved, and I have one thing to say: and people wonder why nullsec is deserted. Meh.
Back to the suggestion, removed cloaked/inactive ships from local. This benefits both groups immensely. The cloakers can now use cloaking offensively to attack a pilot with inadequate vigilance, and the nullbears still have enough of an intel tool to stay safe- if they bother to use it. Sounds fair to me.
|
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:
But also the cloaked/inactive vessel should not be able to see local. Creating a well balanced system.
Agreed, and I suspect Ines Tegator would not object to this detail. The argument that the care bears have been avoiding, is the point where survival in low or null SHOULD require more effort than casually monitoring the pilot roster in local chat. The current level of effort needed for successful vigilance is trivial, considering local has absolute flawless and instant updates on every pilot present in system. THAT is why AFK Cloaking occurs the way it does. They are openly care-bearing in space intended to be defended by group efforts, and this mechanic makes it easy for them.
I have one issue with it, and that's the primary purpose of cloaking is to gather intel safely. They already pay the price by being unable to act while cloaked. Regardless, it's way too easy to work around- just uncloak at a safe spot for a few seconds and you have your intel. Actually, come to think of it while writing that, this may be just the thing, since it forces scouts to be uncloaked while collecting continuous intel, otherwise they cant see people leave/arrive. That may be just enough of an inconvenience to make it work.
The second paragraph is the key point, and should be repeated often. Removing cloakers from local requires exactly that, but still leaves the tools required to fly safe in the hands of the pilot. A covert pilot who's awesome with his dscan has a lot more tactical options, and the ratter still has situational awareness- just with a much smaller margin for error. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote: It also means that the cloaking device will become the most popular wildcard slot item in the whole of EVE- you can cloak entire defensive fleets not just from scan, but from local, while scouts provide eyes and ears.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
|
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
210
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 20:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:I don't want to see cloaked vessels nerfed. Leave them as they are, leave local as it is. I would be happy if CCP provided us with a device that does nothing other than detect what type of cloaking device is in effect in a system. It does not give away the cloaked vessels location or what it is, only that it's using a covert ops cloaking device or the Improved cloaking device II. It gives me an idea of what the vessel is capable of. I'd be happy with that.
Thus making nullsec even more risk-free. No cookies for you. I'll agree on the point that PVE should be able to be done safely in null- without that, none would bother doing it at all since one solid loss negates all the benefit. Trendy carebear-bashing talk about risk-averse behavior or cowards all you want, math is math and business is business. Even a hardcore pvp'er won't waste their time grinding isk in nullsec if their going lose that isk the first time someone comes into system. The catch should be that nullsec requires a lot more work to obtain that safety- removing cloakers from local does that, as discussed farther up in the thread. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
210
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 21:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Recloaking has a built in delay period of 30 seconds.
Many scanning experts claim the ability to locate a ship in far less time than that.
Add to this, the expectation that the ability to hunt cloaked ships will be included with changes that remove cloaked vessels from local.
Read the thread.
|
| |
|