| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
   |
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:29:43 -
[1681] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:...
The key issue is the expectation that this unknown hostile represents too high of a probability that it is an overwhelming force, and is therefore unmanageable by fitting and hull combinations.
Make this manageable, by the PvE player in a way that allows them to PvE at acceptable levels, and the issue is resolved. so does this mean you'd like to see PvE hulls be capable of taking on 20+ other ships at once with the very real potential of being able to succeed? Because that seems to be what you are saying for PvE hulls piloted by capsuleers to be less risk averse and get out there doing sites.
Your ironic solution, brings to my mind a case of the tail wagging the dog, to use a metaphor.
The idea that a PvE ship should have a defense capable of dealing with the 'overwhelming' attack, or even a dynamic one that scales, seems to be the wrong direction here.
No, I would add in a means to make cloaked hot dropping a manageable risk, by adding in a conditional cooldown timer.
As I stated in a previous post:
I would be more willing to see a 1 minute cooldown from a cloak dropping, applied to activating a cyno device.
(The power system for the cyno needing to build a charge, previously denied in the interest of undetected cloaking)
Such a cooldown only coming into play by dropping a cloak. Any other cyno use being unaffected.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
This is well put and states the problem succinctly.
Now the question is how to allow the PVE player to more correctly assess risk. Some kind of indicator of 'afk-ness' would help.
But let's not only help the PVE-loving residents. What about imposters like me who find sport in emerging from w-space to run all the combat sites in somone's SOV? I'd like to know whether station campers are AFK too :)
You are dangerous in the minds of others, only due to how you are perceived.
If they either do not see you, or realize your threat is a non-issue, they can manage a defense able to react to you.
My proposal here
...would effectively hide a cloaked ship from sight. The trade-off, is that the cloaked ship could not threaten with cyno based forces without first revealing themselves, either through their name appearing in local, or them appearing on grid with a cool-down timer active on the cyno.
Net effect: If they can't see you in local, you are either AFK, or a manageable threat.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
869
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:53 -
[1682] - Quote
I think it's a reasonable suggestion that protects against cyno abuse (certainly a good thing).
However, my experience of w-space and 0.0 roaming is that the existential threat to PVEers is not just the cyno, but also the gang hiding behind the wormhole/gate who will warp immediately to the de-cloaking scout.
I really feel that the scout should not be able to hunt unless it is in some way detectable - the analogy being the periscope on a submarine giving away its position while it is observing shipping, or the radar emissions of an aircraft (used to detect other aircraft) being themselves detectable and giving away the position (or at least the bearing) of the emitter.
This would in my view, level the playing field and perhaps lead to more emergent content.
Thoughts?
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:37:51 -
[1683] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think it's a reasonable suggestion that protects against cyno abuse (certainly a good thing).
However, my experience of w-space and 0.0 roaming is that the existential threat to PVEers is not just the cyno, but also the gang hiding behind the wormhole/gate who will warp immediately to the de-cloaking scout.
I really feel that the scout should not be able to hunt unless it is in some way detectable - the analogy being the periscope on a submarine giving away its position while it is observing shipping, or the radar emissions of an aircraft (used to detect other aircraft) being themselves detectable and giving away the position (or at least the bearing) of the emitter.
This would in my view, level the playing field and perhaps lead to more emergent content.
Thoughts?
My proposal here
The proposal, (through the above link to it's post in this thread), specifies that having the cloak itself block being seen in local, justifies being able to hunt the cloaked ship.
This hunting can be proactive, (you have not yet seen evidence of cloaked presence).
This can obviously be reactive, (you are responding to evidence of a cloaked presence).
The player would choose when to attempt cloaked detection, and so bears responsibility for their own protection.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2366
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:37:49 -
[1684] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:
Why is it lazy? It seems pretty reasonable unless people also want to rat and mine afk (but you can't have your cake and eat it)
If the mere fact that im logged in in local tells the residents that ive touched my keyboard in the last hour or so, then they know my presence is likely. That is too much information.
So long as local remains as it is, it is impossible for me to sneak up on anyone unless an active player is indistinguishable from an afk player.
hell no to log offs, afk markers next to my name, or any other such short sighted dribble.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra
The 99 Percent
1182
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:44:23 -
[1685] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Because the whole idea of a sandbox is to give the players the tools to engineer themselves out of a problem, not introduce a cruise missile style fix that obliterates the problem and causes significant collateral damage to other areas
There's no issues with cloaking and people who have issues with cloaks aren't concerned about the cloak its about what happens after the cloak drops and a bunch of undesirable appear instantly to make a fight totally one sided.
the problem is the relative risk that the gankers have to deal with when carrying out these ganks, and that risk is practically zero.
Bullcrap. It is only incredibly narrow-minded fools that think hot dropping has zero risk. I've personally been on counter-drop forces and QRFs that have trashed entire blops fleets.
That does not mean that I think the current cloaking/cyno/local issues in nul/losec are good. I'm only disagreeing with your assertion that there is no risk to the people dropping in on the lonely carebear. There are a multitude of tactics the bear can use to make himself a very undesirable target, or to bait the blops fleet into an untimely and embarrassing loss.
As for the stuff going on in the observatory thread, I'm looking forward to some form of afk cloaky counter-measures that an active player can easily avoid and an afk player cannot.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Perkin Warbeck
Black Watch Guard
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:09:33 -
[1686] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Perkin Warbeck wrote:
Why is it lazy? It seems pretty reasonable unless people also want to rat and mine afk (but you can't have your cake and eat it)
If the mere fact that im logged in in local tells the residents that ive touched my keyboard in the last hour or so, then they know my presence is likely. That is too much information. So long as local remains as it is, it is impossible for me to sneak up on anyone unless an active player is indistinguishable from an afk player. hell no to log offs, afk markers next to my name, or any other such short sighted dribble.
Well I was thinking a longer period. Every 6 or 8 hours for example but I still think that the metrics for system indexes should be reconsidered so that there is some incentive for a cloaked camper to move on after a few days.
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:33:05 -
[1687] - Quote
I also want a way to reward miners and ratters who are attentive, as well as making a better effort.
I want them to be harder to catch.
I want to have an opposed effort, so whoever plans better / works harder.... wins.
PvE can be a goldmine of genuinely interesting play, if this is done right.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Aeryn Maricadie
Periphery Bound
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:05:25 -
[1688] - Quote
AFK cloaking and Local are bound together, the problem is such that
Upon any non friendly entering system where it is immediately identified, everyone in system runs for fear of being ganked. The only way to counter this is for the non-friendly (assuming they are actually there to gank) is to sit around at a safe, cloaked up, and play the waiting game. This is incredibly lame for both parties, but the proposed solutions from either side are always one sided. PvE'ers simply want the cloakies gone so they can safely resume ratting, and the hunters want local gone to remove their biggest obstacle.
Ratting outside of high sec is supposed to come with the added risk of being attacked by other players its the whole risk vs reward thing. Local is far too powerful simply by alerting people to the presence of risk, it should be done away with. On the flip side the PvE'ers ought to have more to defend themselves with than just the few seconds it takes for the hunters to show up, there are plenty of ideas out there but they should only be implemented on the condition of delayed local.
Methods of defense should not be centered around making the system less accessible to the enemy, since this would merely replace the current non-interaction with a different form of non-interaction, they should instead be focused upon players actively resisting each other in some way, with all relevant ships exposed to risk.
Some random ideas that have probably been said before,
more reliance on combat scanning to find the enemy fleets, and a limited ability to scan cloakies
make cyno's less accurate so the gank fleet doesn't necessarily land right at the perfect range, limit amount of ships that can go through at once, or maybe put timers similar to decloak timers on ships that use the cyno
add a cyno like mechanic to WH's, I think it is too easy to make them safe as it is now.
add a ship maintenance bay to logi ships to allow PvE fleets to refit to PvP fits.
I fully recognize that I should not expect anything like this to actually occur.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
576
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:25:24 -
[1689] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Because the whole idea of a sandbox is to give the players the tools to engineer themselves out of a problem, not introduce a cruise missile style fix that obliterates the problem and causes significant collateral damage to other areas
There's no issues with cloaking and people who have issues with cloaks aren't concerned about the cloak its about what happens after the cloak drops and a bunch of undesirable appear instantly to make a fight totally one sided.
the problem is the relative risk that the gankers have to deal with when carrying out these ganks, and that risk is practically zero. Bullcrap. It is only incredibly narrow-minded fools that think hot dropping has zero risk. I've personally been on counter-drop forces and QRFs that have trashed entire blops fleets. That does not mean that I think the current cloaking/cyno/local issues in nul/losec are good. I'm only disagreeing with your assertion that there is no risk to the people dropping in on the lonely carebear. There are a multitude of tactics the bear can use to make himself a very undesirable target, or to bait the blops fleet into an untimely and embarrassing loss. As for the stuff going on in the observatory thread, I'm looking forward to some form of afk cloaky counter-measures that an active player can easily avoid and an afk player cannot.
Entire
Blops
Fleets...
yahh okay.
Im gonna assume you mean just a bunch of blops and not 256 man blops fleets there. Cause if you're gonna go balls deep into a hotdrop with combat blops then yes you are taking a risk, but most blops hotdrops are stealth bombers only, maybe with an arazu and falcon there to jam and perma tackle from range whilst aligned out. its a tiny risk that is totally out of balance to the payoff.
Plus this thread is also concerning the fact that this comes after hours of seemingly inactive play from a cloaker, so unless you have a whole bunch of guys that dont mind sitting on a titan or blops for hours upon hours doing absolutely nothing of any concequence, just waiting on some other guys sitting in a station waiting, then fair enough.
But that sort of mind numbing pseudo guns at dawn gameplay done from several light years away isn't engaging. Its dull and boring and when its go time it happens so quick that when done well you can almost never counter it. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2670
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:50:37 -
[1690] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Perkin Warbeck wrote:Sorry CCP but I haven't been able to read this thread or even read in great depth the detail about proposed observation structures but this is my view.
There should be a distinction made between cloaky camping a system and afk cloaky camping a system. While I'm guilty of both I have no problems with implementing a mechanic that automatically logs off inactive players after a certain time period. That should reduce the ability of an afk cloaky camper to lock down a system 24/7
The cloaking mechanic is fine and should be left alone. I don't think whole classes of ships should be made redundant (recons, bombers, covert T3s, blockade runners, blops and covert ops ships) because of drastic changes to the ability to decloak or detect cloaked ships.
If you do implement a drastic change to the cloaking mechanic that hinder or deter hotdrops then you should drastically reduce the amount of income available to ratters and miners in null. They are not defenceless, the implementation of jump fatigue has meant that cyno mid points are rarely used (and so more space cannot be reached with a hotdrop) and so less risk should always be balanced by less reward. Any mechanic that logs off players that are perceived to be AFK is just not good and is lazy. It would be better to find a solution for both local and cloaks that is balanced. Why is it lazy? It seems pretty reasonable unless people also want to rat and mine afk (but you can't have your cake and eat it) So what exactly is it about cloaks that is so problematic? Why is it an issue that needs to be resolved? What does a cloaky camper do to you? Stops you ratting and mining in a system? Why is that such an issue? The only issue an afk cloaky camper can actually affect in any meaningful way is the system index. That will have repercussions with the forthcoming sovereignty changes. So flip the issue a bit. Why only have the number of NPCs killed or asteroids mined as the metric that determines a system index. Why not have the number of pilots docked, the amount of PI/moon mining, even the number of pilots active in a system (so a cloaky camper could actually maintain or increase the index). I would argue that that is a truer measure of occupancy based sovereignty. That way you can maintain the benefits of cloaks, stupids will still be hot dropped but an afk camper can't affect your system index or your sovereignty.
It is lazy because it does not address the issue that is causing people to AFK cloak in the first place. It is treating the system vs. the actual problem.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2670
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:51:27 -
[1691] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Because the whole idea of a sandbox is to give the players the tools to engineer themselves out of a problem, not introduce a cruise missile style fix that obliterates the problem and causes significant collateral damage to other areas
There's no issues with cloaking and people who have issues with cloaks aren't concerned about the cloak its about what happens after the cloak drops and a bunch of undesirable appear instantly to make a fight totally one sided.
the problem is the relative risk that the gankers have to deal with when carrying out these ganks, and that risk is practically zero.
That is an even better answer.
+1 for that...
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2670
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:52:39 -
[1692] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think it's a reasonable suggestion that protects against cyno abuse (certainly a good thing).
However, my experience of w-space and 0.0 roaming is that the existential threat to PVEers is not just the cyno, but also the gang hiding behind the wormhole/gate who will warp immediately to the de-cloaking scout.
I really feel that the scout should not be able to hunt unless it is in some way detectable - the analogy being the periscope on a submarine giving away its position while it is observing shipping, or the radar emissions of an aircraft (used to detect other aircraft) being themselves detectable and giving away the position (or at least the bearing) of the emitter.
This would in my view, level the playing field and perhaps lead to more emergent content.
Thoughts?
Cyno abuse...whiskey tango foxtrot?
Seriously what is that? Somebody opens a cyno, you die, therefore abuse?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
2670
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:54:29 -
[1693] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Because the whole idea of a sandbox is to give the players the tools to engineer themselves out of a problem, not introduce a cruise missile style fix that obliterates the problem and causes significant collateral damage to other areas
There's no issues with cloaking and people who have issues with cloaks aren't concerned about the cloak its about what happens after the cloak drops and a bunch of undesirable appear instantly to make a fight totally one sided.
the problem is the relative risk that the gankers have to deal with when carrying out these ganks, and that risk is practically zero. Bullcrap. It is only incredibly narrow-minded fools that think hot dropping has zero risk. I've personally been on counter-drop forces and QRFs that have trashed entire blops fleets. That does not mean that I think the current cloaking/cyno/local issues in nul/losec are good. I'm only disagreeing with your assertion that there is no risk to the people dropping in on the lonely carebear. There are a multitude of tactics the bear can use to make himself a very undesirable target, or to bait the blops fleet into an untimely and embarrassing loss. As for the stuff going on in the observatory thread, I'm looking forward to some form of afk cloaky counter-measures that an active player can easily avoid and an afk player cannot.
Hah, reminds me of the time some guys dropping on a carrier got nearly wiped out by the carriers geckos while the player was literally afk for a few minutes.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
RogueHunteer
Perkone
Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 06:51:22 -
[1694] - Quote
Dedicated to intelligence gathering.
Service module possibilities: Being able to increase, decrease or block Star Map filters in the solar systems theyGÇÖre deployed, act as solar system wide D-scan blockers, disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system, take over player tracking capabilities from NPC agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users. We are considering basing their effectiveness through a network coverage (like cell phones) so that a single one may not be that useful, but maintaining a bunch of them in space could give a significant advantage.
WE ARE SAVED!
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
580
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:36:56 -
[1695] - Quote
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/WIP.png
ill just leave this here... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:06:35 -
[1696] - Quote
RogueHunteer wrote:Dedicated to intelligence gathering.
Service module possibilities: Being able to increase, decrease or block Star Map filters in the solar systems theyGÇÖre deployed, act as solar system wide D-scan blockers, disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system, take over player tracking capabilities from NPC agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users. We are considering basing their effectiveness through a network coverage (like cell phones) so that a single one may not be that useful, but maintaining a bunch of them in space could give a significant advantage.
WE ARE SAVED!
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users
You read that entire paragraph, and only really absorbed that one line?
With effectiveness not specified on any aspect, that paragraph also said:
disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system (that hostile may have just blocked local, or removed themselves from being seen in it)
act as solar system wide D-scan blockers (That hostile doesn't need the recon for immunity to d-scan now)
It should be hoped that this offers opportunities to both sides, and doesn't treat anybody like an unintended presence.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises
Ad-Astra
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:31:01 -
[1697] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:You read that entire paragraph, and only really absorbed that one line?
With effectiveness not specified on any aspect, that paragraph also said:
disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system (that hostile may have just blocked local, or removed themselves from being seen in it)
act as solar system wide D-scan blockers (That hostile doesn't need the recon for immunity to d-scan now)
It should be hoped that this offers opportunities to both sides, and doesn't treat anybody like an unintended presence.
It wouldn't make much sense for an upgrade to hobble your own intel capabilities along with those of enemies or intruders. I would assume such a system would either impact everyone not in the holding Alliance or run by diplo status, with everyone with negative or neutral standing being affected, at least for in-system stuff like D-Scan. Something like a Local block or blocking the star-map intel might be easier to code as affecting everyone but I would assume that this would also provide some replacement.
If the option is continue as things were before or shoot everyone in the foot people just won't use those sorts of upgrades. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:36:58 -
[1698] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:You read that entire paragraph, and only really absorbed that one line?
With effectiveness not specified on any aspect, that paragraph also said:
disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system (that hostile may have just blocked local, or removed themselves from being seen in it)
act as solar system wide D-scan blockers (That hostile doesn't need the recon for immunity to d-scan now)
It should be hoped that this offers opportunities to both sides, and doesn't treat anybody like an unintended presence. It wouldn't make much sense for an upgrade to hobble your own intel capabilities along with those of enemies or intruders. I would assume such a system would either impact everyone not in the holding Alliance or run by diplo status, with everyone with negative or neutral standing being affected, at least for in-system stuff like D-Scan. Something like a Local block or blocking the star-map intel might be easier to code as affecting everyone but I would assume that this would also provide some replacement. If the option is continue as things were before or shoot everyone in the foot people just won't use those sorts of upgrades.
Upgrade is a relative term.
It considers something as context in a comparison.
If you are looking at just the perspective of only one side, either cloaking or sov holding, I would certainly not want to see an upgrade.
If you are considering both sides, and an interest in a non prejudicial player driven resolution potential, then heck yeah, a lot of players would love to see an upgrade, myself included.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 23:29:49 -
[1699] - Quote
If the hostile wants to block local (or however that intel blocking is supposed to work), then he probably can simply install his own structure. Ofc he has to defend it then and cant just turn the invulnerability module on...
A structure that blocks the intel of the alliance that installs it does not make much sense. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 14:05:26 -
[1700] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:If the hostile wants to block local (or however that intel blocking is supposed to work), then he probably can simply install his own structure. Ofc he has to defend it then and cant just turn the invulnerability module on...
A structure that blocks the intel of the alliance that installs it does not make much sense.
Observatories are an interesting naming choice, as observatories specifically deal with things very far from themselves.
Perhaps the intel dampening / blocking effect can be achieved from a nearby system, should it be determined that a negative effect requires an installation to exist for support.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
|
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 14:23:30 -
[1701] - Quote
yes that would be a possibility. As long as these structures can not be made invulnerable thats fine. |
Thegasp Cupcakes
CareBears Gone Dark
Pina Colada Armada
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 03:22:48 -
[1702] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Cloaks should cycle like a repper or a weapon with a 5-minute cycle.
You can still use cloaking as an intel tool. Getting rid of the unlimited cloak duration does not impede intel. Intel can't be collected while a person is AFK anyway. All arguments that cloaky local intel depends on being able to AFK cloak are false.
AFK cloaking is primarily an interdiction tool. Want to make someone dock up? Put a cloaky neut in system.
Your ability to hot drop should be related to the number of actively playing scouts you have. Not one dude with 50 accounts checking things out here and there.
I can't believe people complain about AFK mining and tolerate AFK cloaking.
AFK cloaking needs to go away. It actually destroys content by keeping a persistent threat of a threat that isn't really a threat. So people stay docked up to avoid fleets that won't come because the scout is AFK. Reducing AFK cloakers will embolden miners and ratters and make them vulnerable to real scouts who are at the keyboard playing Eve.
AFK cloaking reduces fights and destroys content. It results in station spinning. Get rid of it. Cloaks should be active modules with 5-minute cycles.
So you're saying if people didn't know the AFK cloaker was there, they'd play. So making it delayed mode or even hide those who don't jump/enter system go off local, would fix the issue. This way pilots wouldn't know the threat of a threat that isn't a threat' isn't there at all? But when it actually is a threat, there could be a target this way. Someone who spends all day cloaked up actively watching should be rewarded with the miners you bring out or the fleet you're deciding to bridge because it is 'safe'.
In sense, I have to agree with most that say local should be fixed, humans are paranoid beings. Let people have the reassurance that nothing is there, or theres 100 people in your system waiting for your 200m battleship to run anoms... Instead of them being paranoid because someone is JUST IN their system. Probably not even with the intent of killing them because they know what kind of vain it is. Just dock/pos up when someone comes in, and go back to mining when they leave(with your cargo expanded orca)
|
stalwart general
Lone Star Warriors
Yulai Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 06:39:48 -
[1703] - Quote
don't know if these were mentioned I may have missed it.
1) Make cloaks overheat whenever activated... just take lower amount of damage than normal... They claim they need to be able to gather intel 15mins is enough time for you to gather intel... ,make it take 15-20mins depending on skills likely whatever is in there will either change because you are there or stay the same whether you are there or not in that 15mins. If you're logging alts in 12 different systems in your WT's/red's space that's stalking/harassment
or.......
2) Environmental timer... cynos can only be lit in a constellation once every 30mins. This provides more risk for those fleets bridging fleets in to hotdrop 1 BS
or.......
3) Covert cyno alert structure..... simply detects covert cynos and forces them on your overlay and OV as a warpable hit...
Please no more fatigue stuff that jump fatigue took the cake!... .. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
879
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 11:01:37 -
[1704] - Quote
Cloak Abuse:
I am in favour of fuel for cloaks. Heat is probably too draconian, although running the cloak without fuel could generate heat (the fuel is really a coolant or lubricant?)
Cyno Abuse:
I think the cyno-gank thing can be solved easily. Simply make the jumping ships appear at a random spot in system, rather than on the cyno (accuracy problems across vast space-time distances, blah blah).
This means that anyone who cyno-jumps in:
a) Is invulnerable for a while because you'd have to probe them down to attack them
b) must re-warp to the cyno beacon if that's where the target is.
This gives the defender (in all situations) a moment to react and levels the playing field, which is currently tipped decidedly in favour of the cyno-lighting attacker.
A further advantage of this approach is that jump fatigue can be eliminated. For fleets performing mutliple jumps, there will need to be some co-ordination along the way, involving at least one intra-system warp per cyno jump. This nicely solves the problem of cyno fleets being able to cross the entire map in moments, which was the purpose of introducing jump fatigue.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 12:37:59 -
[1705] - Quote
I think thats a bad idea, because it has a heavy influence on the general cyno mechanic while hardly adressing the camper problem.
It only means a few additionel second until the bomber arrive, but would brake a lot of legitimate cyno uses.
A big problem I see with these cyno ganks is that there is absolutly nothing that can be done to counter them. They pick the fight, you can only react. If they dont want to engange then they are 100% invulnerable because everyone is either cloaked or in a npc station.
I dont like that. If you position yourself so that you can immediatly attack, you should also open yourself to some kind of attack. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4650
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 13:10:55 -
[1706] - Quote
Thegasp Cupcakes wrote:... Just dock/pos up when someone comes in, and go back to mining when they leave(with your cargo expanded orca)
You do know, that the cargo expanded Orca has a dynamic sound system that is unparalleled among any other capital ship?
Whether it is an ancient Earth recording of Wagner, Amarrian monks chanting, or the latest Gallente pop album... that sound system can make almost anything sound amazingly good.
Plus, there is room to throw the most off-the-hook parties, also enhanced due to the sound system keeping the dance floor moving.
Rock on!
(Seriously though, these ships should not be used without some form of viable defense to protect them)
In other news, I think we should be wanting player based resolution to determine whether a hostile gets a kill mail, or is featured on one instead.
Arranging the circumstances so that the defenders are more likely to succeed by default, seems a strange way to get players to show up on the other team.
Having them not show up, or simply fall back to blob only tactics, I feel diminishes game play more than it is now.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
879
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 14:46:35 -
[1707] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:I think thats a bad idea, because it has a heavy influence on the general cyno mechanic while hardly adressing the camper problem.
It only means a few additionel second until the bomber arrive, but would brake a lot of legitimate cyno uses.
A big problem I see with these cyno ganks is that there is absolutly nothing that can be done to counter them. They pick the fight, you can only react. If they dont want to engange then they are 100% invulnerable because everyone is either cloaked or in a npc station.
I dont like that. If you position yourself so that you can immediatly attack, you should also open yourself to some kind of attack.
Doesn't the cloak fuel address the camper problem directly?
Doesn't forcing the cyno-team to regroup in system address the 'no risk cyno bank' problem?
Didn't CCP want a solution to the instant multi-lightyear travel problem?
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 15:39:37 -
[1708] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Doesn't the cloak fuel address the camper problem directly?
This would strongly limit the cloak in other areas.
For example cloaking in a safe spot would not be safe anymore, the hostile would only have to wait until your fuel runs out.
You could not really use it for scouting over longer periods of time since you have to refueling.
This kind of turns the problem around and solves it only from the perspective of the ratter that wants safety.
Right now the problem is, not matter how good the defender is, no matter how little the attacker does: he is completly invulnerable.
With the fuel, its the other way, the attacker has no way to stay hidden. doesnt matter what he does, eventually his fuel will run out.
I do not want to give the win to one side per default.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Doesn't forcing the cyno-team to regroup in system address the 'no risk cyno bank' problem?
Hardly. You can still bringt lots of bombers in the system without any risk. They just need to warp a few seconds. And again this has a strong effect on other uses of cynos.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Didn't CCP want a solution to the instant multi-lightyear travel problem?
They already implemented one.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
879
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 15:51:52 -
[1709] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:
For example cloaking in a safe spot would not be safe anymore, the hostile would only have to wait until your fuel runs out.
That's a reasonable argument, but there has to be a compromise somewhere if AFK cloaking area denial is to go away.
Marranar Amatin wrote:Hardly. You can still bringt lots of bombers in the system without any risk. They just need to warp a few seconds. And again this has a strong effect on other uses of cynos.
But people on grid would see the covert cyno no? It's only invisible on d-scan. They would have (some) warning.
Marranar Amatin wrote:
They already implemented one.
... which is universally hated and requires convoluted and artificial ship bonuses.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 16:00:08 -
[1710] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:That's a reasonable argument, but there has to be a compromise somewhere if AFK cloaking area denial is to go away.
There have been lots of suggestions already, most of which do not have this problem.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:But people on grid would see the covert cyno no? It's only invisible on d-scan. They would have (some) warning.
still wont help much if your ship is either slow to warp, or there is a second cloaky the tackles you until the bomber arrives.
I know that this would help the defender a little, but its a bandaid fix. It does not solve the underlying problem, and it would affect other areas that are not supposed to be affected.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:... which is universally hated and requires convoluted and artificial ship bonuses.
At least I like the solution, its a lot better then before. And I like it better then yours. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |