EVE Search - [Interdictor] Counter-measures

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Interdictor] Counter-measures

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 32	Posted - 2014.05.27 02:18:00 - [1] - Quote [Interdictor] Counter-measures So, cloaking is a tad overpowered. It hit me yesterday that with stealth and submarine technology came counter-measures, so why not have them in EvE? The best candidate for their implementation would be the destroyer hull (because... well... death charges ofc). So why not add some new interdiction probes? Bloom Probe - instead of preventing warp, this probe emits a bright flash that increases signature radius and circumvents cloaking devices, taking them offline until the reactivation timer is over. EMP Probe - This plays havoc with electrical systems, causing all warheads and bombs to explode on contact of the sphere. A side effect of the EMP is it also causes temporary disruption to targeting speeds. Gravity well probe - This probe create a temporary gravity well pulling all ships in towards the epicenter. Heat probe - Creates a sphere that causes active modules to start taking heat damage. Lockbreaking probe - does exactly what it says on the tin. I'm sure you could come up with many more awsome Bland
Joe Boirele Lords 0f Justice Lords Of Stars 47	Posted - 2014.05.27 02:25:00 - [2] - Quote Cloaking already has a nerf. It's called local. The submarine analogy has a point, to an extent, except that you don't get a warning whenever there's a submarine in the same area as you. With a cloaked ship, you do. Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front. Might makes right! Proud Rattlesnake pilot.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 7	Posted - 2014.05.27 08:49:00 - [3] - Quote This sounds interesting, though I believe CCP already stated we wouuldn't see some thing go AoE and heat generation was among them, iirc. The Decloaking probe would be nice if you coulnd't use it on gates and such, since it would make gatecamping way too easy, even without good decloakers. The EMP probe is essentially a combo of smartbomb and Sensor Damp, which sound mildly op even before going into the details. And with a bomber rework likely in the pipe already, I'd wait and see. Area of Effect sensor Dampening is an interesting concept, but I can foresee it really messing the balance as some fleets would be hit hard by it while others could ignore it altogether. Lockbreaking probes already exist, they're the underused Lockbreaker Bombs, and they're underused for a variety of reasons. And before the AFK cloaking crowd all jump on this as some kind of heresy, it would add some gameplay to a boring (if valid) tactic: you can trawl an area with these probes to make sure there aren't campers there. If the afker is dumb enough to do so somewhere close, he can be found and killed, and it would afford cloaky free zones to those that can work for them. All in all +1 , hope this gives CCP food for thought.
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 16:01:00 - [4] - Quote I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers. AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed.
Draconus Lofwyr UK Corp RAZOR Alliance 102	Posted - 2014.05.27 16:23:00 - [5] - Quote Joe Boirele wrote: Cloaking already has a nerf. It's called local. The submarine analogy has a point, to an extent, except that you don't get a warning whenever there's a submarine in the same area as you. With a cloaked ship, you do. not true, a good sonar operator can tell you the type of screw in the water and the ship it belongs to.
elitatwo Congregatio 228	Posted - 2014.05.27 16:56:00 - [6] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers. AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed. No, no, no. You completly misunderstood. A cloaking device make a ship invisible to the human eyes. You cannot interact with it and the pilot with the cloak need to take extra care of hers or his surroundings. Cloaked vessels tend to be squishy. Now after the zee grande defeat of BoB we haz BoB 1.1 and if someone with a cloaked vessel is interrupting your sanctums or heavens wizz drrehdz and carriarz it is working as intended. /thread signature
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 17:02:00 - [7] - Quote Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking. Side note, removing Local would be a good move too.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 719	Posted - 2014.05.27 17:05:00 - [8] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: Any AFK action that can positively or negatively impact other players should be removed from the game and prevented at all costs. I believe CCP agrees with this, they already made tweaks to OGB, now they need to fix AFK cloaking. Side note, removing Local would be a good move too. AFK cloaking cannot negatively impact other players. Unless they're running some sort of bot, there's literally no action a cloaked player can take against you while AFK. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Cassandra Aurilien Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 147	Posted - 2014.05.27 17:06:00 - [9] - Quote Just have to mention... Your "heat" probes would likely be the most powerful anti-capitol weapon in the game. You can't defend against module damage, so you could burn out a capitol fleets weapons & hardeners without even having to engage them. Also, there is a list of commonly suggested ideas on the sticky. Anti-cloaking probes suggestions go back to at least 2007. It's fine how it is, in my opinion. I do have to mention though, I live in WH space, so I'm used to assuming that there is always a cloaky hanging around somewhere.
Willmahh 44	Posted - 2014.05.27 17:14:00 - [10] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: I would also like to see a 10 minute idle time log off timer or some method of being able to scan cloakers down to at least their grid so you could use these kinds of probes to eventually find and decloak afkers. AFK cloaking is a dumb game mechanic, so too is local chat. Hopefully the get fixed. in order for something to be fixed, it must first be broken. just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is broken. i don't particularly care about afk cloakers...they are cloaked - they can't do anything. So you see them in local, do you always dock up when you aren't alone in a system? if so, you're doing it wrong. i often play in cov ops and often run around systems cloaked. but to me, a technology like cloaking should require much more power to maintain than it currently does. if anything were to change i would suggest that cloaking devices, when activated, consume cap at a very slowly (like a point or two per minute, but steady rate and while you are cloaked your cap doesn't regenerate. This would make it so cloaking would have a finite length possible without recharging it. It could take several hours to completely drain your cap, but it would prevent being perma-cloaked 23/7 but again i don't even think this is necessary if all one needs to do to is ignore the +1 in local and keep your eyes open on D-scan...

Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 18:50:00 - [11] - Quote Clearly you do not understand the issue with afk cloaking, although off topic, I'll explain; The main disadvantage sov-dwelling anom runners face over mission runners is the lack of the requirement to probe. This means when I'm running my level 4 missions in npc nullsec I can happily do so with an unlimited number of neutrals in local. I know that if I keep D-Scanning, I will catch probes and have an early warning to any potential threat. In anomalies this is not the case, you can warp to any anomaly in system without giving away if you are actively hunting or not. Combine this with the upgrade system restricting your choice of systems to the ones you have upgraded (both Ihub upgrades as well as gaining military 5). Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. When you can do so AFK for 23/7, pick and choose targets to hotdrop on your own terms with no means of counter or detection, that is a problem.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 722	Posted - 2014.05.27 18:55:00 - [12] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:06:00 - [13] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. That is not enough time for a defense fleet to form, warp in and save the carrier. Even if they could, your talking about having to have an active defense fleet to combat and AFK threat. Why should somoene who isnt at his keyboard have so much power as to have 100 players be ready to counter a potential threat. In reality, AFK cloaking is imbalanced. You, can't even argue that if your aligned you can warp before being tackled from a deloaker, because the simple, yet effective tactic of moving infront of and bumping a target prior to tackling it. I'm all for risk and reward, this is all reward and no risk for the cloaker.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 722	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:08:00 - [14] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one. You're presenting this as if there's nothing the poor ratter could possibly do to to thwart the evil, OP afk cloaker. It's disingenuous at best, and a big fat lie at worst: He could try not being such an idiot. I can't think of anything in Eve that inspires less sympathy than the plight of a solo capital ship ratter. Unsupported cap ships SHOULD get curbstomped. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:11:00 - [15] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one. your missing the point entirely. What is the risk taken by the cloaker? nothing. What is the overal impact, a substantially negative one which in my opinion is way too much power for someone who is essentially AFK/Alt tabbed.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 722	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:13:00 - [16] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If 100s of pilots are afraid of one AFK guy, the only thing that is going to solve their problem is some nice low wholesale pricing on extra-absorbent Huggies. It takes 3 minutes for a ratting carrier to be killed by blops hotdrop. So what? You haven't described a game design problem - you've described a personal problem for a ratting carrier. Is there an amazingly good reason why the carrier pilot shouldn't be expected to manage his risk by, e.g., not ratting in a carrier? I can't think of one. your missing the point entirely. What is the risk taken by the cloaker? nothing. What is the overal impact, a substantially negative one which in my opinion is way too much power for someone who is essentially AFK/Alt tabbed. There's also no reward for the AFK cloaker. Any reward incurred happens while he's actively playing the game and has to uncloak, thereby incurring the risk of being shot at. I'm not missing your point. You just don't have one. It's the same garden-variety self-entitled mewling that has been going on for ages. "Boo ******* hoo, someone is making it dangerous for me to do something obscenely stupid, it's not fair!" "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:17:00 - [17] - Quote His reward is being able to hide his activity, by being present all the time in the system you lack that information provided normally by local count increasing or decreasing. An easier solution would be to have a inactivity logout timer or a method of seeing who is active, pilots that have not moved the cursor in 10 minutes (as an example) appear grayed out in local.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 723	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:20:00 - [18] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: His reward is being able to hide his activity, by being present all the time in the system you lack that information provided normally by local count increasing or decreasing. The second-least sympathetic issue: People complaining that there is an edge-case where their otherwise 100% perfect intel tool is unreliable. You're on a roll. Quote: An easier solution would be to have a inactivity logout timer or a method of seeing who is active, pilots that have not moved the cursor in 10 minutes (as an example) appear grayed out in local. You would just be back here - probably in about a single 10 minute span - after a cloaker parked in an anomaly and "idled". "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Willmahh 44	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:20:00 - [19] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If you had no local, you wouldn't even know he's there. ...and you would rat anyway with a watchful eye on D-scan... So you're saying that knowing he's there is what makes your [insert popular word for man-parts here] retreat into your body cavity.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 723	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:24:00 - [20] - Quote Willmahh wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: Just a single cloaked neut in Sov space system will deny that entire system from potentially 100's of pilots. If you had no local, you wouldn't even know he's there. ...and you would rat anyway with a watchful eye on D-scan... So you're saying that knowing he's there is what makes your [insert popular word for man-parts here] retreat into your body cavity. Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:28:00 - [21] - Quote personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop. You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss.
Willmahh 45	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:28:00 - [22] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Yes, it DOES seem like the complaint could be perfectly resolved by leaving cloaking entirely alone, and simply removing local, no? that is exactly what i was saying. that and HTFU. :)
Willmahh 45	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:30:00 - [23] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop. You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss. so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss? EDIT: so how do you deal with this issue in a wormhole?
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 513	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:34:00 - [24] - Quote I have no problem with afk cloaking as the afk ship be definition cannot do anything to you (they are afk...). Worried about that afk ship cloaked in your system? Pre-prepare a hotdrop response and bait them or jump system. I would however quite like a destroyer module that allowed scanning for active cloaked vessels i.e. a cloaked ship that has any kind of module active or that is traveling hence creating some kind of energy signature to be tracked. However I think it would need to have at least 2 dessies hunting to provide triangulation on the target (one via the 'sonar' module, one providing additional data via remote 'sonar'). This should only work on ships actually doing something though. There is no way in hell anyone should ever be able to track down a silent running cloaked ship other than literally bumoing into it. Oh and depth charges would be smart bombs in Eve :)
De'Veldrin Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra 2093	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:34:00 - [25] - Quote Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen. 1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS. It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears. We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players.
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:35:00 - [26] - Quote Willmahh wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop. You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss. so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss? No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not. An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked.
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:36:00 - [27] - Quote De'Veldrin wrote: Oh look it's this thread again in which the following will happen. 1. Side one: AFK Cloaking is bad. 2. Side 2: No it's not, you're just terrible at Eve. 3. Side 1: No U! 4. Side 2: LOL NEWB, U R TEH SUXORS. It's an argument that has never, in my 6 years of playing, come to any kind of resolution that doesn't devolve into children on a playground with their fingers in their ears. We may as well debate gun control, abortion, or the death penalty. We'll get just as much accompolished. They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 724	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:37:00 - [28] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: Willmahh wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: personally, I don't run anoms. I make money elsewhere in null/wh space. I've hotdropped many people in the past, plan to continue to do so in the future. My point is, D-Scanning is normally the way to detect threats, because you can scan down sites while cloaked without probes there is nothing to assist anom runners in preventing a hotdrop. You can call it being a coward all you like, nobody of sane mind would risk expensive (300-5b) ratting ships with 0% chance of avoiding a loss. so, you're saying people should be allowed to risk a (300-5b) ratting ship with no chance of loss? No, I'm saying there should be a risk. Not a guaranteed chance of death. The determining factor of loss isn't if they manage to catch you or not, its if they are active or not. An easy solution would be to make it so that all forms of scanning be classed as running active modules, requiring you to be uncloaked. I'm pretty much fine with solo carriers having a near-100% mortality rate. If anything, the fact that people do this only serves as evidence that they're not NEARLY in enough danger. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
De'Veldrin Saint's Industries Brothers of Tangra 2094	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:39:00 - [29] - Quote Bland Inquisitor wrote: They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner. If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly. And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local). GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players.
Bland Inquisitor Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 33	Posted - 2014.05.27 19:43:00 - [30] - Quote De'Veldrin wrote: Bland Inquisitor wrote: They are already looking to nerf combat scanning, I want this to also include the internal scanner. If it's a comprehensive rebalance that addresses both sides of the equation, that's fine. If it's a knee jerk reaction to the whining masses, then it will just end badly. And by both sides I mean it needs to examine both cloaking AND the Instant Intelligence Network of Infalibility (AKA Local). I'm all for the removal of local, However I also agree that combat scanning is a tad too easy and rolling the system scanner in as an active mod would be the better option to solving "the problem". Then we have a senario were both hunter and prey have a fighting chance. To say that all carriers should die is plain stupid, You NEED a carrier to live in Null, why not allow it to double up as a ratting ship.



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

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