| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
   |
Posted - 2011.10.18 04:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post. This is not a topic to discuss the level of imbalance as CCP already knows this. I present this idea in good faith in CCP's ability to listen to the community for ideas on how to manage issues instead of extreme nerfs to certain game elements. So devs please feel free to point out any technical issues with my idea and I will be happy to think of ways to improve it to help make it possible to implement in the game. I welcome dev feedback as well so please post your thoughts devs!
Also I would like to note that the images below are mine made from screenshots from singularity and edited with the Gimp. I am not the best but I hope they convey the idea.
For those who are confused at this point. Lets take a random scenario in the game. A player jumps into the system, finds a safespot and cloaks. Under current game mechanics this player is now effectively invincible in place. Example in image below.
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9176/afk1g.jpg
The cloak in theory is balanced. However, in practice this allows risk free away from keyboard activity while in a hostile system and this topic aims to make that a risky venture. And do little else.
The goal of this plan is to add risk to such activity through the use of a modified probe system that targets a random point generated every time the cloaked ship travels a certain distance. And to warn said ship in the same way submarines knew they were being hunted by the ping sounds. Of course in this situation it would be a message window or something similar to fit the feel of the game.
The reason a random point is used is three fold.
* It prevents quick uncloaks which can affect normal transport uses of the cloak.
* It allows the current cloaking backend to remain the same as position is not important other than warp reports.
* It prevents defenders from putting up a probe "umbrella" over operations to prevent active players from getting near while cloaked.
Other than the names and icons. The only major change when it comes to these probes is the extreme scan time as compared to combat or scan probes. I recommend 10x but that is something CCP could test on SiSi to find what is fair.
An Example scan image is below. I call it "Unstable Energy" just as a placeholder.
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/364/afk2e.jpg
During this time the cloak pilot's client flashes a warning that his cloak is starting to become compromised. This would be the time to plan a quick warp and return to throw off the scan. If he ignores the warning or is AFK the result below is shown to the scanning pilot (Please forgive that I forgot to edit the name, 0.25AU not 4 and scan strength which ought to be 100)
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3995/afk3.jpg
A final warning is flashed to the cloak pilot. He has 30 seconds to warp or his cloak is temporarily disabled or its cycle stopped.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3681/afk4s.jpg
A random point is regenerated if he feels it is safe to recloak in place. However, If he is not paying attention his now uncloaked ship can be found by regular scanner probes and his location will be revealed. Often with the results below. (NOTE this screenshot was taken on Sisi and the attacking pilot is not affiliated with this idea nor was aware of my purpose in SiSi as far as I am aware. Just a random gank moment on Sisi made into screenshot for my idea)
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1233/afk5.jpg
As you can see. With this system only someone who is willing to ignore the warnings will be seriously affected by this change. So with this idea I believe this will solve most of the current balance issues with cloaking without having to resort to more direct changes to cloaking itself such as fuel bays or random decloaks. I hope you CCP will consider this idea for EVE.
|
Haxin Gam
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 05:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
ya know, with all of these anti cloaking devices people come up with i can't help but think.
what becomes of us poor capital pilots who happen to be using a cloak? we can't de-cloak and warp, more then likely we will be scanned down before we would manage to warp. it really brings up a point that no one seems to notice, more people use cloaks then the silly people in cov-ops looking for an easy kill. you need a better solution then just, "lets create the easiest to avoid method to de-cloak someone possible!"
you don't need an offensive method to deal with the cloak, you need a way to prevent or mitigate the potential damage they can cause rather then just remain posed/docked up.
long story short, as much as i hate the cloakers in my system, i would hate to have my carrier destroyed after escaping a failed engagement because all of a sudden my cloak doesn't work. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 06:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Edit: If needed perhaps a way to delay the effectiveness of combat probes after a forced decloak from cloak probes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
636
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 06:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
GǪand this is needed why, exactly?
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 07:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪand this is needed why, exactly?
To add risk to cloaking when away from the client. See the first image. |
Feligast
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
233
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 07:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪand this is needed why, exactly? To add risk to cloaking when away from the client. See the first image.
And why is that necessary? If they are away from the client, they can't hurt you. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
708
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 07:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post. Yet you've failed to offer anything of balance. The main reason for people going AFK, is not even mentioned.
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and gain the same psychological warfare effect, should tell you your way off the mark.
But you're not interested in balance, as you already know this.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 07:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Feligast wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪand this is needed why, exactly? To add risk to cloaking when away from the client. See the first image. And why is that necessary? If they are away from the client, they can't hurt you.
To balance cloaking. To allow a hostile in system that is not active to be neutralized. |
Feligast
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
235
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 08:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Feligast wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪand this is needed why, exactly? To add risk to cloaking when away from the client. See the first image. And why is that necessary? If they are away from the client, they can't hurt you. To balance cloaking. To allow a hostile in system that is not active to be neutralized.
cloaking is balanced. While he is cloaked, he cannot target, shoot, or harass you in any way.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 08:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Feligast wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Feligast wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪand this is needed why, exactly? To add risk to cloaking when away from the client. See the first image. And why is that necessary? If they are away from the client, they can't hurt you. To balance cloaking. To allow a hostile in system that is not active to be neutralized. cloaking is balanced. While he is cloaked, he cannot target, shoot, or harass you in any way.
Unbalanced. You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. Read the OP. With my plan he takes a risk doing these actions while online.
This plan will help balance cloaking. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
636
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 08:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Unbalanced. You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.
...and why is that needed?
You're just arguing in circles here. What is the problem? What are you trying to solve? Why is it unbalanced?
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Anshio Tamark
Avitus Lugus
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 08:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Well, technically if you're lucky enough with your probe-placement, you can decloak a cloaked ship. You just need to be lucky enough to get your probes within 2000m of the target, then they'll destroy his cloak (If it works against the covert-prober, why shouldn't it work against the target?) |
Feligast
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 09:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Unbalanced. You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. Read the OP. With my plan he takes a risk doing these actions while online. If he is not AFK it wont matter except some frustrated probers.
This plan will help balance cloaking.
He can't destroy you, you can't destroy him.
Sounds like the very definition of balance.
|
Soldarius
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 09:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
The concept of risk-vs-reward comes to mind.
If you are cloaked, you can gain no reward. So why should you have risk? Even then, if you are on grid with anything else, or even in a poorly chosen safe (on direct line from 2 celestials), you can still get decloaked by stuff.
I would rather see the end of instant intel local chat. Delayed is soooo much more interesting.
"How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 09:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post
there is no issue, so no "ideas" required.
nothing wrong of sitting cloaked while
- Sleeping
- Grocery shopping
- out to see a movie
- watching hulu
- *** your gf
or whatever |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
714
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 09:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Unbalanced. You cant destroy a cloaked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. Read the OP. With my plan he takes a risk doing these actions while online. If he is not AFK it wont matter except some frustrated probers.
This plan will help balance cloaking.
Cloaks are balanced, it's your ideas are not. The fact you are avoiding the actual cause of AFKing, speaks volumes.
You don't want balance, you want even more power placed in your hands. Your ideas have a big effect on active cloaking also, but as your not interested in balance you don't care.
What a great example you are showing with balance and it's affects on the game. 
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Anshio Tamark
Avitus Lugus
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 10:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
There is no need for change to cloaks at all. They are probably the most balanced element in the game, and the only thing CCP doesn't need to work on balancing. You take no risk, so you get no reward. They make it possible to spy on an enemy's POS long before attacking it, in order to gather intel. They allow you to stay safe, even in low-sec/null-sec/WH. And they can be broken if anything comes close enough. So they are nowhere near unbalanced. In fact, I have yet to see anyone undock and cloak to go AFK. The only cloaks I've seen are Covert-ops Probers cloaking while probing to avoid being obvious targets as well as cloaked scouts, warping to some location to keep an eye on the enemy.
In short: CCP, ignore this thread. Cloaks work properly and should not be broken as suggested by the OP. |
Sir Substance
Tactical Knightmare
80
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 10:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Let me get this streight. You suggest that cloaked ships be scannable, and that ships under cloak throw off the scanner by warping to a different spot in the solar system.
Since thats exactly the same as not having a cloak, why bother using them? |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
30
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 11:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:[quote=Feligast]
Unbalanced. You cant destroy a docked contact regardless of the player is asleep, in school, etc.. Read the OP. With my plan he takes a risk doing these actions while online. If he is not AFK it wont matter except some frustrated probers.
This plan will help balancedocking.
If I come into your system in my bomber and you're docked, or hiding in a pos, why can't I kill you? If you get to kill me while I'm cloaked, I should get to kill you while you're docked. It's only fair. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
164
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 12:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Well this is a poorly thought out piece of crap of an idea.
You're completely nerfing wormhole intel gathering and changing the entire meta of wormholes by effectively mandating that people in wormholes constantly maintain a skynet of cloak detecting probes.
You failed to consider ripple effects. You attempted to fix a problem that's not really a problem, and in effect break a necessary tool in an entirely different section of the game. It's critical to be undetected and undetectable in wormholes for a variety of reasons. You really want to "fix" the non-issue with cloaked afk people?
Fix the fact that you can see cloaked ships in local in the first place, and do so in a balanced way.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 16:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 17:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
I do hope CCP have something planned for cloaking. It is a cool mechanic but it is being abused to the extent that its not even funny.
You can put a cloak on anything and be virtually untouchable. And yet players cry and shout: If you cant afford to loose what you fly then dont fly it, or HTFU and get out of 0.0! To that I say, what is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy.
You also say that noone should be safe in EVE and that the very prospect of undocking should put you in danger. Then why is it that you should be able to find a safe haven anywhere you are, for as long as you like without ramifications.
How did EVE get to sutch a state that cloak is the only thing you depend on? Is it the fear of loosing your ship? Is it the fear of loosing your edge? Or is it the fear of having to adapt?
|
XXSketchxx
Remote Soviet Industries
24
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 17:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
Quote:This is my fully detailed idea to address the issue of balance in the current cloaking system on Tranquility as of this post.
What issue? |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
53
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 17:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
For the 8975896459865823658991051734056035868th ****ing time, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH CLOAKING!
Holy ****ing ****. Stop ****ing crying about cloaking. It is the most balanced mechanic in the game.
Stop QQing and GTFO.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 17:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Forum needs help. Can't be asked to retype nicely.
Cloakers aren't always afk and don't need to be made to move simply at your whim. Doing so forces cloakers to give up a position which was intended for them to be able to gain. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
Sir Substance wrote:Let me get this streight. You suggest that cloaked ships be scannable, and that ships under cloak throw off the scanner by warping to a different spot in the solar system.
Since thats exactly the same as not having a cloak, why bother using them?
You don't warp to the spot it finds as it is random. You use normal probes to find him if he has not recloaked because he is AFK. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
Meditril wrote:Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more.
Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time.
This plan will address the issue. Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison to free dotdrops and free effect under the current system. |
Nariya Kentaya
Celestial Ascension
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lucien Visteen wrote:I do hope CCP have something planned for cloaking. It is a cool mechanic but it is being abused to the extent that its not even funny.
You can put a cloak on anything and be virtually untouchable. And yet players cry and shout: If you cant afford to loose what you fly then dont fly it, or HTFU and get out of 0.0! To that I say, what is so special about your ship that you should be able to find complete safety in the lands of the enemy.
You also say that noone should be safe in EVE and that the very prospect of undocking should put you in danger. Then why is it that you should be able to find a safe haven anywhere you are, for as long as you like without ramifications.
How did EVE get to sutch a state that cloak is the only thing you depend on? Is it the fear of loosing your ship? Is it the fear of loosing your edge? Or is it the fear of having to adapt?
hehe, see what you did there? i did, you completely ignored the fact that cloaking requires a module, a HIGH SLOT module.
so even a cloaker IS NOT SAFE, if he TRIES anything or gets found, if he doesnt fix his **** quick, he is fighting with 1 less high-slot, and in alot of fights, that can make a difference |
Nariya Kentaya
Celestial Ascension
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Meditril wrote:Maybe you won't believe it, but some people have a real life which sometimes tends to be interruptive... and for those people cloaking is the only way to play in low-sec or 0.0. If I have an urgend real life issue while playing EVE, I can warp into a safe spot and cloak until the issue is resolved. So being unable to be scanned down is working as intended. Making cloaked safe spotted ships scannable will just reduce the number of people playing in low-sec or 0.0 even more. Just log off. Log back in and recloak. That is the way it is supposed to work not being able to go away from the client for hours or nearly a day at a time. This plan will address the issue. Other issues that arise from its implementation are minor in comparison to free dotdrops and free effect under the current system.
what if he is playing FC or something? what fi for whetever reason, logging off will severely interrupt the action he is currently involved in? honestly, i go afk ALL THE EFFING TIME while cloaked, and so far, the only people who have EVER complained are low and null carebears in mining ships who say its "unfair that can hide from them", fact is, if you feel your under threat from someone in your freakin system you need to do one of 2 things:
1) tavel with a buddy/security (every null sec alliance should have security flying around anyways)
2) GTFO because EvE is obviously too scary for you. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
If the player is FCing in a cloak I HIGHLY doubt the enemy is stupid enough to probe under Tidi when the cloaker receives warning after warning.
If the player is AFK in one client while FC in another and not paying attention? Well that activity is exactly what I want to add risk to not allow.
Not active in client while in a hostile system? Log off or accept the risk. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |