Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 17:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
None of the other threads I found suggested this idea, If it has been suggested and my search just failed to show it, then feel free to flame/lock/whatever this thread.
Suggestion: Allow cloaked ships to show up on D-scan of black ops ships, but not giving ship type, name or exact distance.
say giving the result as follows (name type distance): unknown unknown -
This would allow cloakers to be located, albeit with significant difficulty if they are in a safe spot, but would not affect other forms of cloak use.
This might also give a better reason to ever take a BLOPS onto the field(still an expensive/fragile early warning system), as it would be able to help counter bombing runs (though may only be able to give a few seconds warning, which may not be enough).
Let the complaints/comments begin.
Edit: AFK cloakers will still be mostly safe, so long as they make their safespot right, as it could take a blops a very very long time to locate them, and blops are not very common ships. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1031
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 17:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Surely this would be so laughably situational that it might as well not exist? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... |
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Beside the fact that cloacking do not have to be nerfed and on the countrary covert ops option should be improved to give chance to break stagnant situations... but beside this: do you really think an AFK cloacker would be anywhere except in a safe spot?
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1031
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
There's already a buff coming for the blackops, why not see what that does for them first? |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
492
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
If this is only about making blops useful they are going to either make 2 of them one jump bridge and one combat or make the current ones better at combat also. In short wait for the T2 balancing Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
The best time to give ideas for small (almost insignificant) features such as the one I proposed is before they go and do a major rebalance. I am simply giving an idea for an additional small change which could be made, and might add some interesting new tactics to the game.
This won't significantly nerf covert cloaking (as does not give exact distance data, so locating the ship will still take a while, even if it is on the same grid), and will probably take a few hours to locate a ship at a safespot with this method, so is not really that much of a nerf to AFK cloaking either, just change safe spot every couple hours (ie don't go afk longer than 2-3 hours with a hostile BLOPS in system). |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 19:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... |
|
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
51
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 19:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
There is a mechanic in place in-game that already allows you to manually find a cloaked ship: Get within 2000m of them. The cloak drops, and voila, there he is. It works just fine, what's the problem? |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:There is a mechanic in place in-game that already allows you to manually find a cloaked ship: Get within 2000m of them. The cloak drops, and voila, there he is. It works just fine, what's the problem?
I have no problem with that method of finding a cloaky, might actually be faster to use that w/ an inty + fighters than a BLOPS with my method (so long as the cloaky was seen on D-scan before it cloaked and went AFK)
What's the problem with allowing BLOPS to provide covert related intel? iirc they can already detect covert cynos in system, so why not cloaked objects? |
Kiran
Knights of Azrael The Azrael Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 20:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with afk cloakers. Its part of the game learn to deal with it or shut up.
|
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 20:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kiran wrote:There is nothing wrong with afk cloakers. Its part of the game learn to deal with it or shut up.
I have nothing against them, I am simply making a suggestion which adds an extra use for Black Ops, as well as an additional tactical tool for PvP.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1884
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 21:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
Congrats. You have nerfed bombing runs and cloaky spies. D-scan is ridiculously easy.
edit: also, this does nothing to stop afk cloaking. The cloakers will simply make a safe spot between planets or in the middle of the system. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 21:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Congrats. You have nerfed bombing runs and cloaky spies. D-scan is ridiculously easy.
edit: also, this does nothing to stop afk cloaking. The cloakers will simply make a safe spot between planets or in the middle of the system.
Only nerfs bombing runs by a few seconds warning and only if the target of the bombing run has a BLOPS (fragile and expensive), as for the spies, they are already seen in local, this just gives you a vague idea of the general location of them (if they move every 2 hours or so, they will be completely unaffected by this change).
AFK cloakers already make safe spots to cloak at (or at least should...).
Technically, with some time spent (probably on the order of 2-3 hours minimum, expected to be much more than that) this method will allow for the location of ships in the middle of a system, by using the same method to locate cans anchored in the middle of nowhere, but with the downside of requiring a slow battleship instead of an interceptor/covops.
With the current timer that limits D-scan spamming, this will take quite a lot of work to locate any afk cloaker, thereby not usually being worth the time, especially since if they move every few hours, then all the work finding them is lost. Only really really paranoid people with access to BLOPS will use this to find the average afk cloaker, and if they are the kind to whine about afk cloakers, will probably be to afraid to use this method anyway.
edit: The first response to this thread is the most appropriate when concerning most players, as they will see it result in too few tactical situations to be useful. If it were not for the fact that BLOPS are going to be rebalanced soon, I probably would not have even considered posting this idea here. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1884
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 23:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Congrats. You have nerfed bombing runs and cloaky spies. D-scan is ridiculously easy. Only nerfs bombing runs by a few seconds warning and only if the target of the bombing run has a BLOPS (fragile and expensive), as for the spies, they are already seen in local, this just gives you a vague idea of the general location of them (if they move every 2 hours or so, they will be completely unaffected by this change). Black-Ops ships don't have to worry about their "fragility" when they are sitting in the middle of a 100 strong battleship/RR fleet. And they'd just be used for "traveling" fleets.
And no... it completely ruins bombing runs. As soon as a Black-ops reports Stealth Bombers with in 1 AU of the fleet, the fleet will warp away. Bombers that are attempting to get "bombing points" bookmarked around gates or fleets... they'd be pinned to a 5 degree scan within a minute (again, it's laughably easy to use D-scan to track down people... especially when they're close and you're playing "defense"). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Thutmose I wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Congrats. You have nerfed bombing runs and cloaky spies. D-scan is ridiculously easy. Only nerfs bombing runs by a few seconds warning and only if the target of the bombing run has a BLOPS (fragile and expensive), as for the spies, they are already seen in local, this just gives you a vague idea of the general location of them (if they move every 2 hours or so, they will be completely unaffected by this change). Black-Ops ships don't have to worry about their "fragility" when they are sitting in the middle of a 100 strong battleship/RR fleet. And they'd just be used for "traveling" fleets. And no... it completely ruins bombing runs. As soon as a Black-ops reports Stealth Bombers with in 1 AU of the fleet, the fleet will warp away. Bombers that are attempting to get "bombing points" bookmarked around gates or fleets... they'd be pinned to a 5 degree scan within a minute (again, it's laughably easy to use D-scan to track down people... especially when they're close and you're playing "defense").
On the point of fragility: If a bombing run is done successfully, then the chances of the BLOPS surviving is much lower, as the alpha would kill them regardless of if they are inside a 100 man fleet.
They just need to set up just off the grid of the fight (ie less than 0.1AU from the fight), then the BLOPS will not know whether they are going to bomb or not.
For the BLOPs detecting them sitting there, if the fleet spent all of its time running from non bombing fleets or scouts, then it would not be able to get any objectives done (ie if they are defending something, they will continually be warping away from it).
Maybe couple this with another nerf to the directional scan's refresh time, but that would then result in many more complaints...
|
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
blops would also be great for bubbled gate camps then as well....
But you can't get a warp to with D scan... so this doesn't really do anything about AFK cloaking - thus I'm not too opposed to it.
Still... it would take BLOPs from not used much at all, to essential components of a fleet.... It might be too powerful |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:blops would also be great for bubbled gate camps then as well....
But you can't get a warp to with D scan... so this doesn't really do anything about AFK cloaking - thus I'm not too opposed to it.
Still... it would take BLOPs from not used much at all, to essential components of a fleet.... It might be too powerful
You can't get a warpin, but you can locate the target to within a grid or two (the same way used to locate anchored cans at safe spots), then fly drone assisted frigates all over the place till it decloaks.
Any suggestions on how to keep a similar idea but not make it too powerful? So far a scan duration limit seems most reasonable, but would hinder any normal use of the D-scan as well. |
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1236
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Even if limited, this still offers a possible means to hunt for cloaked vessels.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
This is not a "nerf local" thread, please do not turn it into one, there are more than enough of them already. My idea has nothing to do with local, as it would work just fine in wormholes as well. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1236
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:This is not a "nerf local" thread, please do not turn it into one, there are more than enough of them already. My idea has nothing to do with local, as it would work just fine in wormholes as well. You brought up Cloaking, and also mentioned was AFK Cloaking.
To assume it is not tied into Local Chat is a glaring failure to recognize the cause and effect relationship they share.
Actually suggesting that the problem begins with the pilot using AFK Cloaking tactics, ignores enough to be considered mislead.
I shall try to explain a few details that are usually glossed over crudely, but hold the truth.
AFK Cloaking: This is done in response to Local Chat flawlessly reporting pilot presence. It dumbs down the interaction between pilots by outright telling all parties who is present. Without this crutch, use of sensors, strategy, and cooperation would be needed to fill the void. What does it achieve? It creates a flaw in the usual flow of cause and effect for life in many systems. Often, a neutral or hostile pilot is seen entering, and activity is suspended until they leave. There is trivial risk, as standard procedure often involves being ready to get safe in the time frame provided by this instant alarm. Hostile pilots who refuse to leave are subsequently hunted down. When the "AFK Cloaking" pilot enters, he disrupts this process, by not leaving. Further, since this intel tool persistently shows him present, the default response of suspending activity is perpetually pushed as chosen reaction. This devalues the intel tool, as it is now being used against the native PvE pilots instead of helping them. If local were removed, sensors strategy and cooperation would be placed as valuable means of protecting PvE income assets. It would also be pointless to AFK cloak, as noone would be aware of your presence while you were passive. It is widely anticipated that any change to local which stopped free cloaking awareness would also include a means to hunt cloaked ships.
Summary: That free intel tool favored by so many can be used by the hunters too.
Hot Dropping: Bridging is intended to bypass reinforced blockades and travel time. Here, it has been fine tuned to avoid advertising the presence of a fleet to the free intel tool as well by delaying the easily recognizable population spike till the last possible moment. The intention is to deny the warning local provides, although it still reports the presence of the cyno boat enough to be associated with AFK Cloaking instead. Quite simply, while PvE pilots would never resume regular activities with a hostile fleet present, they are sometimes willing to gamble over whether a cloaked vessel represents that level of threat at a given time.
Sorry about the length, but the mindless repetition of "AFK Cloaking is bad mmkay" sounds foolish. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Even if limited, this still offers a possible means to hunt for cloaked vessels.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained.
I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
I never said It was bad, I actually approve of the technique as a viable disruption method. I mentioned the use for detecting AFK cloakers as an example of how this system could be used.
My main purpose of suggesting this tool is to ADD an intel gathering tool, one which could be used for some possibly interesting tactical and strategic uses.
Have you ever tried to locate a GSC that someone anchored at a safe spot? Calling this a counter to AFK cloaking is like calling a battleship a counter to storing loot in one of those GSCs (i.e. only using a battleship to locate it, not an interceptor) |
Iagus Damaclese
Zero-G Dogs
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:25:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Even if limited, this still offers a possible means to hunt for cloaked vessels.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained. I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game.
If a region is shutdown by AFK cloakers its because the regions owning players let it be that way, not much different than carebears that stay docked or or logged off, if you let other people make your game miserable you've only yourself to blame. |
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:27:00 -
[27] - Quote
Iagus Damaclese wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Even if limited, this still offers a possible means to hunt for cloaked vessels.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained. I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. If a region is shutdown by AFK cloakers its because the regions owning players let it be that way, not much different than carebears that stay docked or or logged off, if you let other people make your game miserable you've only yourself to blame.
Care to elaborate?
You cannot counter AFK cloaking, you have no method of scanning them down and removing them. There is no way the owning players can be proactive about the situation. You literally just have to gamble and hope that the cloakers aren't active or constantly have a 20 man fleet in every system ready to jump on any hot drop fleet that is sure to be on the other side of that cloaky cyno. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1236
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game.
They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards.
Think about this:
Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty. In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent. In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?)
Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Iagus Damaclese
Zero-G Dogs
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Even if limited, this still offers a possible means to hunt for cloaked vessels.
It is not that cloaks should not change, but this stalemate effect is countering the free intel being given out by local.
We have right now, a case of: "I know you are there, but I cannot find you" (Absolute presence awareness countered by absolute location concealment)
You cannot change one side without the other, and still have balance.
Too much focus on how to remove AFK cloaking. You are addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
If you want to remove AFK cloaking's game impact, remove cloaked ships from displaying in local.
When this is done, it becomes reasonable to consider means to hunt cloaked vessels. NOT before this happens.
So long as people in a system magically know cloaked pilots are present with them, cloaked vessels should not be vulnerable to being hunted effectively.
Cloaking will be earned when cloaking awareness is earned. Balance must be maintained. I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. If a region is shutdown by AFK cloakers its because the regions owning players let it be that way, not much different than carebears that stay docked or or logged off, if you let other people make your game miserable you've only yourself to blame. Care to elaborate? You cannot counter AFK cloaking, you have no method of scanning them down and removing them. There is no way the owning players can be proactive about the situation. You literally just have to gamble and hope that the cloakers aren't active or constantly have a 20 man fleet in every system ready to jump on any hot drop fleet that is sure to be on the other side of that cloaky cyno.
Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.
|
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
Iagus Damaclese wrote:
Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.
What?
Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game. They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards. Think about this: Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty. In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent. In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?) Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced.
When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.
You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.
Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? |
|
Iagus Damaclese
Zero-G Dogs
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:
Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.
What? Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game. They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards. Think about this: Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty. In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent. In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?) Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced. When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet. You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit. Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing?
because it makes people like you mad. |
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Iagus Damaclese wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:
Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.
What? Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game. They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards. Think about this: Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty. In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent. In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?) Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced. When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet. You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit. Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? because it makes people like you mad.
People like me?
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1236
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.
You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.
Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? So tell me, what game mechanic is the AFK Cloaker using to interact with you?
Let's ignore the assumptions linked by using the description AFK, it is accepted they could return at any time, assuming they were ever absent to begin with.
How is it that you know they are present, so that they are locking down anything at all? Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:53:00 -
[34] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.
You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.
Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? So tell me, what game mechanic is the AFK Cloaker using to interact with you? Let's ignore the assumptions linked by using the description AFK, it is accepted they could return at any time, assuming they were ever absent to begin with. How is it that you know they are present, so that they are locking down anything at all?
Local obviously since any kind of Scanner wouldn't show who the ship belonged to which again completely shuts down any kind of co-ordination or organization with allies if that is removed.
It is simply the threat that they are in system and can jump on you at any time without any capability to be proactive about it that makes it so completely unbalanced. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Unclaimed.
1236
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 05:02:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.
You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.
Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? So tell me, what game mechanic is the AFK Cloaker using to interact with you? Let's ignore the assumptions linked by using the description AFK, it is accepted they could return at any time, assuming they were ever absent to begin with. How is it that you know they are present, so that they are locking down anything at all? Local obviously since any kind of Scanner wouldn't show who the ship belonged to which again completely shuts down any kind of co-ordination or organization with allies if that is removed. It is simply the threat that they are in system and can jump on you at any time without any capability to be proactive about it that makes it so completely unbalanced. And how do they know you are present to be hunted? Assuming your location to be wildly obvious, as many might suggest checking obvious places, how would they know you had no protective forces present, and strategically placed to ambush hunters?
Do you really think local doesn't help hunting for targets, every bit as much as it helps avoid unwanted PvP? Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Tornadari Axonium
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 05:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet.
You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit.
Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing? So tell me, what game mechanic is the AFK Cloaker using to interact with you? Let's ignore the assumptions linked by using the description AFK, it is accepted they could return at any time, assuming they were ever absent to begin with. How is it that you know they are present, so that they are locking down anything at all? Local obviously since any kind of Scanner wouldn't show who the ship belonged to which again completely shuts down any kind of co-ordination or organization with allies if that is removed. It is simply the threat that they are in system and can jump on you at any time without any capability to be proactive about it that makes it so completely unbalanced. And how do they know you are present to be hunted? Assuming your location to be wildly obvious, as many might suggest checking obvious places, how would they know you had no protective forces present, and strategically placed to ambush hunters? Do you really think local doesn't help hunting for targets, every bit as much as it helps avoid unwanted PvP?
Local is pretty much useless for going on the offensive. Especially since a lot of the best ratting systems in 0.0 are small systems and you can pretty much see everything on DScan without having to move too much.
The odds of an ENTIRE ALLIANCE having people in every single system to counter ONE cloaky because of the threat that he poses?
Please tell me how that is even feasible or balanced.
|
Kodiii
TalCorp Enterprises Care Factor
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Dude I see you saying this in lots of these threads.
Obviously, you've noticed there are many. Therefore, don't you think that it might be a problem that there are so many people being made unhappy by this? Personally, I don't find it that hard to deal with it, although I generally don't risk doing the little ratting that I do in my more expensive ships when I have cloakers in system. I just take it as time to pvp instead and leave the system that they are camping.
Yes CCP isn't the biggest fan of nerfing things to make certain game mechanics easier for a percentage of the player base (although think of things like doomsday nerfing and POS fuel blocks), it is in their interests to keep people from rage-quitting from the game. You can call people who are complaining whatever you like, they are still paying for the game and are therefore part of the stakeholders that CCP takes account for.
This is a very fair and minimalistic idea, but you haven't even taken that into account yet.
As for my opinion, I think it's a pretty good idea. There could be something included also that makes it hard to dscan their location by either limiting the distance they can be detected, or by making it only possible to detect them in maybe a certain direction (like 90 degrees scan and less for instance). |
Iminent Penance
Interstellar Military Assistance Corporation Black Core Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:33:00 -
[38] - Quote
Titans needed to be nerfed because too few were being killed, and got too many kills.
Don't cry just because they've been replaced by a new godmode.
Edit: In response to the "balance" issues, guys supporting it... quit making up "its balanced because its meant to be uncatchable"
Thats why titans GOT NERFED! People said they were "made to be strong" and "just using their utility" Learn from past mistakes, avoid arguing "balance" with "It r fair becus it meant to be unstoppable" ... |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:48:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game.
i dnt think null sec was put into the game so ppl could rat risk free
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
Local is pretty much useless for going on the offensive. Especially since a lot of the best ratting systems in 0.0 are small systems and you can pretty much see everything on DScan without having to move too much.
The odds of an ENTIRE ALLIANCE having people in every single system to counter ONE cloaky because of the threat that he poses?
Please tell me how that is even feasible or balanced.
if local was removed and this gave hot dropping gangs an advantage, then counter-hot dropping gangs would have the same advantage.
why are ppl needed in every system? if nullbears are working together from the start wont they be in groups already? its the attitude that ppl can work alone in null that would change with the removal of local.
and the removal of local would probably be joined with a way to detect and locate cloaked ships |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:49:00 -
[40] - Quote
Kodiii wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Dude I see you saying this in lots of these threads. Obviously, you've noticed there are many. Therefore, don't you think that it might be a problem that there are so many people being made unhappy by this? Personally, I don't find it that hard to deal with it, although I generally don't risk doing the little ratting that I do in my more expensive ships when I have cloakers in system. I just take it as time to pvp instead and leave the system that they are camping. Yes CCP isn't the biggest fan of nerfing things to make certain game mechanics easier for a percentage of the player base (although think of things like doomsday nerfing and POS fuel blocks), it is in their interests to keep people from rage-quitting from the game. You can call people who are complaining whatever you like, they are still paying for the game and are therefore part of the stakeholders that CCP takes account for. This is a very fair and minimalistic idea, but you haven't even taken that into account yet. As for my opinion, I think it's a pretty good idea. There could be something included also that makes it hard to dscan their location by either limiting the distance they can be detected, or by making it only possible to detect them in maybe a certain direction (like 90 degrees scan and less for instance).
the problem in most afk cloaker threads is not the afk cloaker, but the fact that null bears think they should be allowed to rat in null sec without any interruptions |
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1031
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 13:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:
Act like a *****, get treated like a *****. Pure and simple.
What? Nikk Narrel wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. I do not consider players relying on local to avoid all hostile contact to be playing the game. They face less risk using this play dynamic than pilots flying in high security, and get higher rewards. Think about this: Using local this way, in low or null, they completely avoid neutral and openly hostile pilots with absolute certainty. In high sec, a war dec'ed corp pilot can be scouted by an out of corp alt, then speed blitzed by the actual war opponent. In high sec, a pilot can be suicide ganked. (Remember hulk-a-geddon?) Having a stalemate situation where neither side effectively plays may seem broken, but it is balanced. When did anyone say anything about relying on local, and why the **** are you completely ignoring the glaring balance issue with removing the intel capacity from local? It just gives a MASSIVE advantage to any gang or hot dropping fleet. You're trying to base your argument on the capability of using alts in high sec? That's what Awoxing is for in null sec you ******* idiot. You cannot just "avoid" enemy gangs in null sec, especially if you're being a dipshit. Would you please care to elaborate as to why being able to AFK cloak and not do ANYTHING and have such a massive affect on a system is a good thing?
Making you scared is not an effect on a system. TEST hold nearly two hundred syetems, go rat in another one. Or use a battlecruiser or other cheap ship that is either able to get out quickly, or just isn't worth dropping on. |
Iagus Damaclese
Zero-G Dogs
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 13:57:00 -
[42] - Quote
I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
Iagus Damaclese wrote:I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic.
I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local... |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:I really don't think cloaks were put into the game so that people could completely shutdown null sec region economy by not playing the game. Pray tell how someone AFK cloaked, can completely shut down a system?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:30:00 -
[45] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... Black ops ships are not responsible for AFK cloaking. So irrelevant.
So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to fix.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
Irrelevant to whether they are responsible, they could still use this feature.
Thutmose I wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
Kodiii wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Dude I see you saying this in lots of these threads. Obviously, you've noticed there are many. Therefore, don't you think that it might be a problem that there are so many people being made unhappy by this? Personally, I don't find it that hard to deal with it, although I generally don't risk doing the little ratting that I do in my more expensive ships when I have cloakers in system. I just take it as time to pvp instead and leave the system that they are camping. Yes CCP isn't the biggest fan of nerfing things to make certain game mechanics easier for a percentage of the player base (although think of things like doomsday nerfing and POS fuel blocks), it is in their interests to keep people from rage-quitting from the game. You can call people who are complaining whatever you like, they are still paying for the game and are therefore part of the stakeholders that CCP takes account for. This is a very fair and minimalistic idea, but you haven't even taken that into account yet. As for my opinion, I think it's a pretty good idea. There could be something included also that makes it hard to dscan their location by either limiting the distance they can be detected, or by making it only possible to detect them in maybe a certain direction (like 90 degrees scan and less for instance). I say it because people don't think about it before posting.
Let me ask you this. Whilst they are AFK, what mechanic are they using to interact with you?
When you know the answer, you know the cause. For this is a cause and effect situation. Fixing the effect, will not fix the cause.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:35:00 -
[48] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Irrelevant to whether they are responsible, they could still use this feature. So what problem are you trying to solve and why?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:37:00 -
[49] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1031
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 15:42:00 -
[50] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Thutmose I wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind...
That doesn't answer the question. Are you by any chance a politician? |
|
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 16:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.
Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.
Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread. Let's see what you include in your OP.
Title: Yet Another AFK Cloaking Nerf Related Idea:
In the OP: Suggestion: Allow cloaked ships to show up on D-scan of black ops ships, but not giving ship type, name or exact distance. This would allow cloakers to be located, albeit with significant difficulty if they are in a safe spot, but would not affect other forms of cloak use. Edit: AFK cloakers will still be mostly safe, so long as they make their safespot right, as it could take a blops a very very long time to locate them, and blops are not very common ships.
So yes, it is an AFK nerf thread. You simply add on some irrelevant Black Ops stuff to hide it. Nothing you've stated so far, is a problem needing to be solved.
So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1103
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic. I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local...
First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local.
Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local.
Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense.
Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:44:00 -
[54] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Thutmose I wrote:It does answer his question, He asked for a reason why my list of suggestions is needed (I assume he is asking about the list) which I give a reason for. He also asked for what problem it is trying to solve, which I gave those as well.
Anyone who has read the first post will see that this is not a "nerf AFK cloaking" thread. Let's see what you include in your OP. Title: Yet Another AFK Cloaking Nerf Related Idea: In the OP: Suggestion: Allow cloaked ships to show up on D-scan of black ops ships, but not giving ship type, name or exact distance. This would allow cloakers to be located, albeit with significant difficulty if they are in a safe spot, but would not affect other forms of cloak use. Edit: AFK cloakers will still be mostly safe, so long as they make their safespot right, as it could take a blops a very very long time to locate them, and blops are not very common ships. So yes, it is an AFK nerf thread. You simply add on some irrelevant Black Ops stuff to hide it. Nothing you've stated so far, is a problem needing to be solved. So why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve?
Thutmose I wrote:Yes, this is a very situational suggestion, but the combat capabilities (LOL) of BLOPS is also very situational, so now we have another very situational use of the ship, maybe increasing the usage.
Reason needed: more BLOPS need to be blown up. Or used for anything other than a bridge for that matter
Problem trying to solve: 1) Not enough BLOPS blow up. 2) Will give something to tell the ones who whine about AFK cloakers: tell them to go manually find the ship with a BLOPS.
I am still trying to come up with a way to make EAFs more useful, but so far nothing comes to mind... |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:46:00 -
[55] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Thutmose I wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic. I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local... First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local. Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local. Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense. Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game.
The point of the idea was to give a use for the currently mostly useless BLOPS. Even if they give them combat capabilities, they will still mostly be used as jump bridges. I am giving a use for them which does not involve bridging targets, and which would encourage their use in fleets.
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1032
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:Thutmose I wrote:Iagus Damaclese wrote:I vote we lock this topic as it is going nowhere constructive and continue to lock any and all future discussion related to this topic. I agree with this, hence my first line in the thread mentioning that if this goes bad, it get locked. I was hoping that people might discuss the actual mechanic I suggested, rather than rant on about local... First because the essential "problem" isn't cloaking. It is local. Ever since I started in EVE I've never understood the point of covert ops, black ops etc when you cannot hide from local. Effectively the only covert ops thing you can do is a hot drop right on top of someone. Otherwise you tip your hand by having local explode. It just hasn't made any sense. Also, to answer your OP. Honestly it's crap. So you want to have a way to counter cloakers in system. But to do so requires a very niche ship, that requires a ton of training. So effectively it limits its usefulness to the veterans of the game. The point of the idea was to give a use for the currently mostly useless BLOPS. Even if they give them combat capabilities, they will still mostly be used as jump bridges. I am giving a use for them which does not involve bridging targets, and which would encourage their use in fleets.
And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote: And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
No-one will ever use titans, they have to pay out 70 billion isk, and are only used for some INCREDIBLY niche situations. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:05:00 -
[58] - Quote
As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no.
Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:12:00 -
[59] - Quote
Mag's wrote:As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no. Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine.
If you ask an identical question, I will give an Identical response, and ad-hominem arguments are generally considered to be bad.
care to elaborate more on why you say no? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13924
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:16:00 -
[60] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Mag's wrote:As you obviously have no faith in your idea and won't answer directly. I say no. Black ops are getting a buff anyway and cloaks are fine. If you ask an identical question, I will give an Identical response, and ad-hominem arguments are generally considered to be bad. care to elaborate more on why you say no?
It can't be Black Ops, they are getting a buff. (on this page) It can't be cloaks, they are working fine.
So what is the problem you are trying to solve?
It's a simple question you cannot seem to answer.
Therefore you must have no faith in your idea. What else am I meant to think?
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1034
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:34:00 -
[61] - Quote
Thutmose I wrote:Danika Princip wrote: And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
No-one will ever use titans, they have to pay out 70 billion isk, and are only used for some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
Wait, what?
How is requiring a fragile one billion isk ship to be on the field with a fleet in order to spot incoming bombers in any way the same as using a supercap? A bomber gang can't kill a super, but they'll mess up a blops pretty well. Hunting for AFK cloakers would take hours, as you keep saying, and wouldn't it be easy enough to get around that by just pointing your covops upwards and leaving it in motion?
Do bombers (and dictors I guess) really need the nerf? And yes, telling people the bombers are on grid so they should warp out now before they're set up properly IS a nerf. |
Thutmose I
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Thutmose I wrote:Danika Princip wrote: And no-one will use them for this, as they'll be paying a billion ISK for virtually no practical use outside of some INCREDIBLY niche situations.
No-one will ever use titans, they have to pay out 70 billion isk, and are only used for some INCREDIBLY niche situations. Wait, what? How is requiring a fragile one billion isk ship to be on the field with a fleet in order to spot incoming bombers in any way the same as using a supercap? A bomber gang can't kill a super, but they'll mess up a blops pretty well. Hunting for AFK cloakers would take hours, as you keep saying, and wouldn't it be easy enough to get around that by just pointing your covops upwards and leaving it in motion? Do bombers (and dictors I guess) really need the nerf? And yes, telling people the bombers are on grid so they should warp out now before they're set up properly IS a nerf.
Not supercap, Titan. Besides bridging, titans have a very niche mechanic associated with them for the sole purpose of destroying caps. Before the DD change it was not as limited, though arguably overpowered.
The range limitations mentioned help make it not so much of a nerf to the bombers, as you would be unable to determine whether they are setting up, or just sitting around. If the enemy was going to run away every time they noticed bombers nearby, then they would get nothing done, so the bombers still succeed at disrupting the enemy.
If the afk ship is moving while afk, it will be easy to locate, as you can scan down where it is moving, by noticing when it gets out of certain ranges, assuming that the D-scan for this only has 20-100km or so precision. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
385
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 21:13:00 -
[63] - Quote
There is no logical reason to implement this suggestion. Free intel already exists. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Iminent Penance
Interstellar Military Assistance Corporation Black Core Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 05:11:00 -
[64] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Kodiii wrote:Mag's wrote:Why is this needed and what problem are you trying to solve? Dude I see you saying this in lots of these threads. Obviously, you've noticed there are many. Therefore, don't you think that it might be a problem that there are so many people being made unhappy by this? Personally, I don't find it that hard to deal with it, although I generally don't risk doing the little ratting that I do in my more expensive ships when I have cloakers in system. I just take it as time to pvp instead and leave the system that they are camping. Yes CCP isn't the biggest fan of nerfing things to make certain game mechanics easier for a percentage of the player base (although think of things like doomsday nerfing and POS fuel blocks), it is in their interests to keep people from rage-quitting from the game. You can call people who are complaining whatever you like, they are still paying for the game and are therefore part of the stakeholders that CCP takes account for. This is a very fair and minimalistic idea, but you haven't even taken that into account yet. As for my opinion, I think it's a pretty good idea. There could be something included also that makes it hard to dscan their location by either limiting the distance they can be detected, or by making it only possible to detect them in maybe a certain direction (like 90 degrees scan and less for instance). the problem in most afk cloaker threads is not the afk cloaker, but the fact that null bears think they should be allowed to rat in null sec without any interruptions
I am all for afk gameplay, as a matter of fact, if theyre allowed to afk grief... (which i do on some alts because ccp gives no fucks) Everyone should be allowed to bot rat/mine... tada! now both sides can play afk forever, griefers can occasionally get a good hot drop when they're there for the 1% of the time theyre online to actually do something, and the qqing carebears get to make isk until then without having to manually dock up/safe up trying to be smart. This resolves the need to nerf afk grief play cloaks, and no longer gives carebears the need to cry cus they can go afk too!
Win/win, one step closer to god mode afk griefers against endless isk stream afk farmers. :D (for those who go "afk dont hurt nobody" reread what i said bout the 1% of the time they do show up at their computers)
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1041
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 11:21:00 -
[65] - Quote
Iminent Penance wrote:(for those who go "afk dont hurt nobody" reread what i said bout the 1% of the time they do show up at their computers)
They're not AFK when they're at their computers. Hope this helps. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
204
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:09:00 -
[66] - Quote
There's something hugely amusing about people crying about risk-averse cloakers when the instance one pops up, the very same people dock and flock to the forums to cry about it |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |