| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
   |
Posted - 2006.11.16 13:44:00 -
[1]
Before I even start this thread, IÆd like to mention two things that CCP said they wanted to encourage and that as a player base weÆve been screaming for:
1)Greater incentive for small / medium scale engagements
2)More front line use of carriers/motherships
Now some of you may know from experience, my corporation makes extensive use of cloaking devices as part of its daily combat routine. We've used them in many situations from cloaking on a gate so we could jump in behind escorted haulers, setting up on sniper camps stupid enough not to move regularly and biding our time to strike a larger fleet on our terms. They are also a valuable tool for a corporation like us in the way that they allow us some freedom of movement in this world of crazy sized fleets (especially with the threat of system defences in future expansions)
Then there is also our mothership which also mounts a cloaking device. We as far as we are awear we are the only corporation using these great ships as they were intended. To wade into battle delivering their deadly cargo knee deep in a 20+ man enemy fleet, not sitting in some god forsaken PoS remotely assigning fighters with impunity is how we believe these ships should be used.
When Kali hits us this is all going to change. We will no longer be able to plan well timed strikes against larger foes as the inevitable blob style response sees us scanned out even under cloak. It does not matter one bit that the scan wonÆt uncloak you, as a well placed wing of drone ships will soon uncover any cloaked group. This is even more of a problem for our mothership as it will now have to take a backseat in combat, as it finds itself unable to hide itself when one of the many alliances weÆve annoyed come looking for it in force.
Looking out side of my personal situation for a moment, why should an elite hauler pilot find himself camped in a system with no hope of escape and an almost definite certainty that he will be probed out and killed? IsnÆt the fact he canÆt go anywhere for the whole day enough of a penalty? Why is there a need to condemn him to almost certain death because whoever is after him canÆt be arsed to withdraw and catch him in the next system as he jumps in? (IÆm a pirate and IÆm happy with the way things are tbh.)
So I ask you CCP where was the sense in actually allowing cloaked ships to be scanned out? Why ruin a way of life and survival for smaller corps such as my own because a few people seem to have an inability to catch a target at a gate, or the brains bait it out? Why relegate the pride of our fleet to sitting at a PoS to ensure its safety when its not involved in a fight?
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 13:52:00 -
[2]
A compromise needs to be made. Should a scan allow detection of cloaked ships? Probably. Should it be easy or quick to find them? Heck no.
You have many good points, and I hope CCP takes them into account.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
|
Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
Forum Moderator
Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:08:00 -
[3]
/sighned is considered spam, only post if you have something constructive to say. And /sighned posts will be removed fromt his thread and forums warnings issued for spamming.
- Thanks Hutch.
____
forum rules | Email us
They call me "Hutch" because my name is well... long
Actually we call you "Hutch" because people might get the wrong idea of 'God of Young Boys' - Cortes, sigjacker extrodinaire |
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:08:00 -
[4]
Well, i can agree with your point.
I see what you do as largely similar to the use of cloaked interdictors. I like cloaked interdictors alot :p
But, on the other hand, cloaked afk recons and covert ops in relatively densely populated areas in 0.0 have way too much effect on the practical possibility for locals to move around freely.
Put ten people afk under cloak in a central system in Curse. Put 5 more afk cloaked in 5 systems around it and half of your enemies will feel unable to move around. Add one or two cloaking dictors and you are completely suffocating enemy ability to move without even being at your keyboard.
That I do find a problem. Even without the afk component those enemies are way too hard to force out fo their safespots.
The question is what to do about it...
Personally, I wouldn't mind adding a timer that simply kicks people in space from the game after 30 minutes of inactivity, or only allows normal (non-covops) cloaks to be active for ten minutes at a time, with a 10 minute timer before you are able to activate again. But we all know that those wouldn't solve the issue either.
So what would ? Basing scanning on sovereignty ? Only adds more incentive to anchor more of those stupid pos's. Base it on the number of people scanning for you when you are cloaked ? Meh.
I don't know. I agree that simply making cloaked ships show on scanner is wrong, but the alternative sucks too.
Old blog |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:12:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Rod Blaine
Well, i can agree with your point.
I see what you do as largely similar to the use of cloaked interdictors. I like cloaked interdictors alot :p
But, on the other hand, cloaked afk recons and covert ops in relatively densely populated areas in 0.0 have way too much effect on the practical possibility for locals to move around freely.
Put ten people afk under cloak in a central system in Curse. Put 5 more afk cloaked in 5 systems around it and half of your enemies will feel unable to move around. Add one or two cloaking dictors and you are completely suffocating enemy ability to move without even being at your keyboard.
That I do find a problem. Even without the afk component those enemies are way too hard to force out fo their safespots.
The question is what to do about it...
Personally, I wouldn't mind adding a timer that simply kicks people in space from the game after 30 minutes of inactivity, or only allows normal (non-covops) cloaks to be active for ten minutes at a time, with a 10 minute timer before you are able to activate again. But we all know that those wouldn't solve the issue either.
So what would ? Basing scanning on sovereignty ? Only adds more incentive to anchor more of those stupid pos's. Base it on the number of people scanning for you when you are cloaked ? Meh.
I don't know. I agree that simply making cloaked ships show on scanner is wrong, but the alternative sucks too.
Yea I can see why that could be an issue, but then again is it CCP's place to compensate for peoples lack of balls to come out and play when there is a lone hostile in system? In some respects its been benifitial in helping some people find their spine again.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
/sighned is considered spam, only post if you have something constructive to say. And /sighned posts will be removed fromt his thread and forums warnings issued for spamming.
This forum needs a polling option as a guage for support then 
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:18:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
/sighned is considered spam, only post if you have something constructive to say. And /sighned posts will be removed fromt his thread and forums warnings issued for spamming.
This forum needs a polling option as a guage for support then
dare I say it, but /signed on both OP and quoted up above.
Oh on a sidenote: Whoever actually takes their capital ship to the front lines with a small strike force to beat down a larger force wins, even though they may lose their ships.
Why?
Because they had the guts to do it. Thats why.
|
Ishquar Teh'Sainte
Euphoria Released
Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:21:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 16/11/2006 14:21:33
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
/sighned is considered spam, only post if you have something constructive to say. And /sighned posts will be removed fromt his thread and forums warnings issued for spamming.
This forum needs a polling option as a guage for support then
game development isn't a democracy 
/me hides
___________________
-Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 16/11/2006 14:24:34
Edited by: Rawthorm on 16/11/2006 14:23:54
Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte
Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 16/11/2006 14:21:33
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
/sighned is considered spam, only post if you have something constructive to say. And /sighned posts will be removed fromt his thread and forums warnings issued for spamming.
This forum needs a polling option as a guage for support then
game development isn't a democracy
/me hides
Looking back at some of the changes, you could have fooled me (Then again there have been some issues which the Dev's have done for the good of us all even tho we didnt like it)
Anyway enough about polling and back to the topic at hand 
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Yea I can see why that could be an issue, but then again is it CCP's place to compensate for peoples lack of balls to come out and play when there is a lone hostile in system? In some respects its been benifitial in helping some people find their spine again.
Well, the problem isn't jsut lone hostiles. They don't scare most people. It's the ability of complete gangs to sit cloaked and be a threath you can't quantify nor force to show it's hand.
Imagine if you owned some space and I sat ten alts in shuttles with a cloak in your main system. What could you do, not knowing what ships i had or wether I was active or even how many people are behind the accounts ?
Now imagine its ten alts in combat ships, and you actually know it's combat ships
What then ?
Cloaked combat gangs are often simply lame. They do need fixing, but preferably in a way that allows the more valid use of claked gangs to remain, and the new scanner isn't that way no.
Old blog |
Jennifer Watson
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:29:00 -
[11]
I approve the OP's post
*starts Mexican wave, which cannot be stopped Forum Mods 
or...* GOOOOOOAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!
|
maarud
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:36:00 -
[12]
While I agree largely with what you are saying, there's the flip side of the coin, where you enemy takes an alot account and leaves a person AFK 24/7 in your system, making you feel like you can't move least they are about line up gang about to jump in to land on you when ratting or something.
There needs to be a decient middle ground.
I think scanning for cloaked ships should take a considerable amount more time than the normal probing. They should be expensive and the level of accuracy should be extreamly random, so you can warp anywhere from 15km -> 100km of the cloaked ship and when you do warp in, it should be at a random place in a radius of that ship, not so that you warp in facing a straight line to the ship (I'm not sure if this currently does or doesn't happen now).
Thats just my suggestions.
maarud.
Signature removed due to incorrect size (400X120px and 24000 bytes). Please review the forum rules or e-mail us with any questions. You can view you signature here - Petwraith
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: maarud
While I agree largely with what you are saying, there's the flip side of the coin, where you enemy takes an alot account and leaves a person AFK 24/7 in your system, making you feel like you can't move least they are about line up gang about to jump in to land on you when ratting or something.
There needs to be a decient middle ground.
I think scanning for cloaked ships should take a considerable amount more time than the normal probing. They should be expensive and the level of accuracy should be extreamly random, so you can warp anywhere from 15km -> 100km of the cloaked ship and when you do warp in, it should be at a random place in a radius of that ship, not so that you warp in facing a straight line to the ship (I'm not sure if this currently does or doesn't happen now).
Thats just my suggestions.
Still even with some middle ground, should the active cloakers be penilized because of a few lame AFK'ers? If afk cloakers are a problem then introduce a 30 min log off system for idle ships. Would probably free up server resources and cut the number of people in Jita by about 1/4
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:42:00 -
[14]
Ability to detect that there is a cloaked ship within scan range = good.
Ability to know what ship your opponent is cloaked in = very very bad. If you KNOW there are cloaked falcons with a lone BS on a gate, then where's the fun in either setting or springing that trap? You already knew the BS had mates in local, so you already had enough info to suspect a trap. CCP doesnt owe people more info than that, so why are they giving it to them?
I say that you should be able to pick up cloakers on the scanner, but only get "Cloaked Signature" back in the results box. If it says Shiptype: Arazu, for example, there is no longer much point in cloaked recons as part of small gangs, and their only real use is to sneak up on incredibly stupid enemies who dont think of setting scanner to 150km and seeing if there is a recon in grid with you.
---||---
|
Jarvis Drago
Caldari
The Blood Cabal
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:43:00 -
[15]
I agree with the OP.
Make cloaked ships hard as crap to scan out.
I've got a simple solution to the cloaked-afk problem. Make the pilots of cloaked vessels not show up in local.
|
Justice Starcatcher
Asguard Security Service
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:46:00 -
[16]
Actually being able to probe out cloaked ships sounds fine to me, but only if they remove local.
I find it strange to support removing local after all this time  , but my need for local has always been that I had no other tool to avoid being suprised. If probes now scan out cloaked ships, fair enough don't let them be seen in local and its my fault for not probing for them.
What the... |
maarud
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:47:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Still even with some middle ground, should the active cloakers be penilized because of a few lame AFK'ers? If afk cloakers are a problem then introduce a 30 min log off system for idle ships. Would probably free up server resources and cut the number of people in Jita by about 1/4
AFAIK, this in place. I know if I'm afk, my client disconnects me, sometimes after a bit of time, other times after a longer length of time.
But there are some not-so wholesome corps/alliances out there that use very dirty tricks, like perhaps a macro, doing stuff on the interface, keeping the client alive.
Is that fair, no. Can we prove it, no. Is there anything we can do about it, no.
If it's not in place, then yes, I agree that there should be a forcefull disconnect on a client that has not had any "use" in about 30mins of last action, but I still think you should be able to probe a cloaked ship to a degree, even if they made it some ridiculous combination of lvl V skills, like "understanding cloaking perfectly", prequisites to scan cloaked ships, Cloaking V, Survey V and Astrometrics V.
This is a game of risk vs reward and no single tatic should be unbeatable, even cloaking.
maarud.
Signature removed due to incorrect size (400X120px and 24000 bytes). Please review the forum rules or e-mail us with any questions. You can view you signature here - Petwraith
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Hoshi
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:47:00 -
[18]
As someone who has spent the last 3 weeks on SiSi just testing probing I can say this.
You can NOT scan/probe for cloaked ships with the new system.
If this is a bug or working as intended I do not know but that's how it currently is.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: maarud
Originally by: Rawthorm
Still even with some middle ground, should the active cloakers be penilized because of a few lame AFK'ers? If afk cloakers are a problem then introduce a 30 min log off system for idle ships. Would probably free up server resources and cut the number of people in Jita by about 1/4
AFAIK, this in place. I know if I'm afk, my client disconnects me, sometimes after a bit of time, other times after a longer length of time.
But there are some not-so wholesome corps/alliances out there that use very dirty tricks, like perhaps a macro, doing stuff on the interface, keeping the client alive.
Is that fair, no. Can we prove it, no. Is there anything we can do about it, no.
If it's not in place, then yes, I agree that there should be a forcefull disconnect on a client that has not had any "use" in about 30mins of last action, but I still think you should be able to probe a cloaked ship to a degree, even if they made it some ridiculous combination of lvl V skills, like "understanding cloaking perfectly", prequisites to scan cloaked ships, Cloaking V, Survey V and Astrometrics V.
This is a game of risk vs reward and no single tatic should be unbeatable, even cloaking.
Ahh the risk and reward arguement. Thing is there is no reward from sitting in a safe being cloaked (safety isnt a reward. I get that if I stay logged off) therefore there shouldnt be any risk.
|
Roshan longshot
Gallente
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:57:00 -
[20]
Isnt it enough a cloaked pilot appears in local? Why did we waste all these skill points just to be taged by a probe?
This change has just made covert-ops oudated. OP tactics with cloak is about the best I have ever seen or heard about. Remember except on three classes of ships cloak eats up alot of cpu, which hampers the ships combat abilities. That is enough penalty in my books to being sneaky with a cloaked ship.
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter pirate or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box.
|
maarud
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 14:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: maarud
Originally by: Rawthorm
Still even with some middle ground, should the active cloakers be penilized because of a few lame AFK'ers? If afk cloakers are a problem then introduce a 30 min log off system for idle ships. Would probably free up server resources and cut the number of people in Jita by about 1/4
AFAIK, this in place. I know if I'm afk, my client disconnects me, sometimes after a bit of time, other times after a longer length of time.
But there are some not-so wholesome corps/alliances out there that use very dirty tricks, like perhaps a macro, doing stuff on the interface, keeping the client alive.
Is that fair, no. Can we prove it, no. Is there anything we can do about it, no.
If it's not in place, then yes, I agree that there should be a forcefull disconnect on a client that has not had any "use" in about 30mins of last action, but I still think you should be able to probe a cloaked ship to a degree, even if they made it some ridiculous combination of lvl V skills, like "understanding cloaking perfectly", prequisites to scan cloaked ships, Cloaking V, Survey V and Astrometrics V.
This is a game of risk vs reward and no single tatic should be unbeatable, even cloaking.
Ahh the risk and reward arguement. Thing is there is no reward from sitting in a safe being cloaked (safety isnt a reward. I get that if I stay logged off) therefore there shouldnt be any risk.
Reward - Keep your enemy extreamly paranoid about his movements and possible severly limiting their movement
Risk - None.
Reward - Being able to carefully select your targets to ships you can easily take down without much risk to your own.
Risk - None.
I could probably go on...
Listen, I'm not dissagreeing with you, I just think there should be a little bit of reward for the guy that spends the time and effort (and it should be considerable time and effort) to find a cloaked ship.
Also, you are sitting in a system at your ship, you should be checking your scanner. Recon and covert ship should ring alarms and you should be trying to keep an eye open for probes too.
If you are afk... well then you should have logged off.
maarud.
Signature removed due to incorrect size (400X120px and 24000 bytes). Please review the forum rules or e-mail us with any questions. You can view you signature here - Petwraith
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:05:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 16/11/2006 15:08:26
Originally by: maarud
Reward - Keep your enemy extreamly paranoid about his movements and possible severly limiting their movement
Risk - None.
Reward - Being able to carefully select your targets to ships you can easily take down without much risk to your own.
Risk - None.
I could probably go on...
Listen, I'm not dissagreeing with you, I just think there should be a little bit of reward for the guy that spends the time and effort (and it should be considerable time and effort) to find a cloaked ship.
Also, you are sitting in a system at your ship, you should be checking your scanner. Recon and covert ship should ring alarms and you should be trying to keep an eye open for probes too.
If you are afk... well then you should have logged off.
TBH tho, point one is generaly a waste of your time just sitting there and for that reason most people just don't do it (one could also argue its the same risk > reward ratio as using alt spies). As for point two, that requires being within visual and scramble range in most cases to be effective. That also brings the danger of being decloaked and the usual problems of recalibration and lock time if you do decide to engage. It isnt a clear cut advantage as you'd belive and the cloaks many down sides tend to be a risk in their own right.
In any case don't think im argueing for the sake of it, I do aprechiate the support on increasing the dificulty of a cloaked find (and tbh most times it should fail outright) and a compremise is ultimatly better than nothing. I am however still of the firm belief that the cloak is as it should be in its current form.
|
Wizard
Without Reason
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:16:00 -
[23]
Raw, you surly have seen this coming.
Increasingly over the months and indeed last year the game is being geared up more and more towards fullfilment and gratification of the larger entities in game.
All the niches and ways "we" smaller corps find to seek out a fight and to carry out tasks within eve gte brushed aside.
Be thankfull you havent been subjected to logg on traps m8, 3 in the last 2 months  .
Without Reason corp website
^^looking for a PvP corp with little stress then |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:19:00 -
[24]
Being able to find cloakers is IMO essential.
Being able to find them quickly is the opposite.
If someone's hanging around in system for an hour, then I want to be able to dump probes and start tracking them down, or a the very least force 'em to leave. But as a pilot of covops and recons, being able to get picked up too easily is something that I'd rather not see.
|
Imperil
Northern Intelligence
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:32:00 -
[25]
So what? People can still see you in local and make a guess on what ships you fly.
And bringing your Mothership to a system and cloak it is not what i call "used-as-intended". 
Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW! |
Wild Rho
Amarr
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:38:00 -
[26]
I liked someones idea a while ago of cloaks consuming fuel to operate over time meaning that while you can use the cloak to hide from enemies you can't sit at an ss with impunity 23 hours a day.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:40:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Imperil
So what? People can still see you in local and make a guess on what ships you fly.
And bringing your Mothership to a system and cloak it is not what i call "used-as-intended".
If we stuck to that definition we wouldnt even have the ship. It's the out of the box thinking thats allowed us to ambush freighter convoys with it and hit fleets.
You know sometimes I get the feeling this game is loosing the human touch. doing anything now has to be a mechanism rather than a creative idea, and thinking out of the box has to be restricted as much as possible...
|
Aertuun
Ars Caelestis
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:44:00 -
[28]
TomB said that it would be possible for cloaked ships to be probed, but not scanned.
Probing for cloaked ships is fine. Most people on this thread don't have the faintest clue how scan probes work, in the old or new system. Probing for cloaked ships will not be "overpowered".
The only people who will be caught out are those who have gone AFK or are trying to hide huge ships with a basic cloak. It's already extremely difficult to find covops when they're uncloaked, let alone with their cloak on.
Being able to scan for probed ships would be a bit much, but that isn't planned at all, so it shouldn't be a problem.
And as Hoshi said, it isn't currently possible to probe cloaked ships on the test server (how has this been tested? Have we tried using the OMG powerful exploration probes on cloaks?).
|
Imperil
Northern Intelligence
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 15:47:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Imperil
So what? People can still see you in local and make a guess on what ships you fly.
And bringing your Mothership to a system and cloak it is not what i call "used-as-intended".
If we stuck to that definition we wouldnt even have the ship. It's the out of the box thinking thats allowed us to ambush freighter convoys with it and hit fleets.
You know sometimes I get the feeling this game is loosing the human touch. doing anything now has to be a mechanism rather than a creative idea, and thinking out of the box has to be restricted as much as possible...
Nothing is stopping you from still doing what you do in Kali. Only difference is that people can find your ships with a probe, and confirm shiptypes instead of looking at local and guess.
Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW! |
Ar3s
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:13:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Ar3s on 16/11/2006 16:15:43
A ship that is designed to be "invisible" should stay "invisible". All other ship types that fit cloaking devices should have the ability removed .....
|
Agent Li
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:17:00 -
[31]
IMHO, stealth should be rather like submarines in real life.
Yes, if you drop enough probes, you should be able to find one - it should be a game of cat and mouse.
There shouldn't be a mod that doesn't have a countermod.
|
Sales Merchant
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:18:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Rawthorm
2)More front line use of carriers/motherships
Capital ships need a big boost in hitpoints to justify using them in frontline fighting. As it stands the cost:hitpoints ratio for capital ships is very bad.
|
Vizgoth
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:32:00 -
[33]
Rawthorn, you talk as if AFK cloaking is a random occurance. It isnt and it happens everyday and in large ammounts in 0.0. I have seen 1-15 man blobs at least a couple times a week in 0.0 doing this. BoB, RA, GoonSwarm, Ka-TeT, AAA, just to name a few in the last month. BTW goonswarm does it the most Anyway, it is a bad problem and can shut down a whole region from mining/ ratting for hours and hours. Who wants to sits in a system in a gang looking for cloaked ships for hours knowing you will never be able to find them and they may be afk. That takes away the fun of the game for hundreds of players.
IMO they should 1) kick people who have been idle for 45 min. (no it does not happen atm) 2) make cap use a lot heavier for non cov ops ships. Cov ops cant do much alone so it isnt so bad with them but, when you got an astarte and arazu cloaked in your system from down time to down time, even those 2 ships could pose a serious prob for any non cap ship.
|
Lochmar Fiendhiem
Caldari
International Multi-Player Consortium
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:34:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Lochmar Fiendhiem on 16/11/2006 16:38:12
Personally, think all the people that prey on the weak need to grow a set of they're own. Instead of whining that a cheap gank will no longer be available, try being more creative. Can't sit in the same safe while cloaked and afk? guess what, too bad! Most smart people who can't cloak usually warp between safes in a system to avoid being scanned. Now your precious cloaker will have to do the same.
This isn't an issue of being able to find cloakers, this is an issue of cloakers being no longer to exploit normal game mechanics to cause as much fear and uneasiness as possible. Now you can't go afk or just sit in one spot for extended periods of time, you'll actually have to do something while waiting for that cheap gank.
And AFAIK cloakers will not appear on scanner, you'll have to use SCAN PROBES to find them. A regular scan using the scanner will still return no results. If your corp is based around cloaking (OP) then you'll have to adjust as people know you do this and yes they will be expecting it so yes you will be at a disadvantage.
But right now, the cloakers that sit afk all day and do nothing while safed are using game mechanics and there is nothing that can be done to find them. RNF in catch is a good example. 3 or 4 cloakers sit there all day and ever now and again some ill-prepaired hauler gets popped. Annoying? yes. Anything we can do? no. They fly stabbed mwd cloakers so by the time the hauler is hit, even if we do lock him, he can still warp away and rarely come into scram range himself as the mwd insures a speedy get a way.
But to the OP, this issue will affect you less, as you seem to be on the move frequently, and will only truely affect you if your sitting at a safe waiting. Even if they do manage to scan you, they still need to uncloak you. If your using a mothership then at some point you will have to uncloak it to use it, at which point it is vulnerable anyways.
This will only really affect the people that exploit cloaking and just sit afk in systems all day long.
EDIT: auto-lg off after 30-45min of inactivity could help curve this issue, but who's to say that the cloakers won't download a random click macro to prevent the autolog? maybe a message that pops up in a random location. "you have been inactive for 30 minutes. You will be logged off in 1 minute unless you press OK".
Have the box appear in a random location so a macro can't pick it up on the screen and then unless the pilot "OK"s the box, they will be logged off once the timer is up.
|
Imperil
Northern Intelligence
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:34:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ar3s
Edited by: Ar3s on 16/11/2006 16:15:43
A ship that is designed to be "invisible" should stay "invisible". All other ship types that fit cloaking devices should have the ability removed .....
They are "invisible", they are cloaked. Just because a ship is cloaked does not mean that its sensors cant be cought up and scanned. Cloaking is just like "blending-with-the-background".
Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW! |
maarud
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:50:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Imperil
Originally by: Ar3s
Edited by: Ar3s on 16/11/2006 16:15:43
A ship that is designed to be "invisible" should stay "invisible". All other ship types that fit cloaking devices should have the ability removed .....
They are "invisible", they are cloaked. Just because a ship is cloaked does not mean that its sensors cant be cought up and scanned. Cloaking is just like "blending-with-the-background".
That statment and the one about submarines just gave me an idea.
Cloaked ships, that are not covert in design, should have their scanner disabled while cloaked. You should be able to turn this on, but it should cost you, like 90% cap and if you do have it on, probes deisgned to locate cloaked ships, will be able to find you.
It's a rough idea... not sure if I actualy like it...
maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Locke DieDrake
Human Information Virus
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 16:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: maarud
Originally by: Rawthorm
Still even with some middle ground, should the active cloakers be penilized because of a few lame AFK'ers? If afk cloakers are a problem then introduce a 30 min log off system for idle ships. Would probably free up server resources and cut the number of people in Jita by about 1/4
AFAIK, this in place. I know if I'm afk, my client disconnects me, sometimes after a bit of time, other times after a longer length of time.
But there are some not-so wholesome corps/alliances out there that use very dirty tricks, like perhaps a macro, doing stuff on the interface, keeping the client alive.
Is that fair, no. Can we prove it, no. Is there anything we can do about it, no.
If it's not in place, then yes, I agree that there should be a forcefull disconnect on a client that has not had any "use" in about 30mins of last action, but I still think you should be able to probe a cloaked ship to a degree, even if they made it some ridiculous combination of lvl V skills, like "understanding cloaking perfectly", prequisites to scan cloaked ships, Cloaking V, Survey V and Astrometrics V.
This is a game of risk vs reward and no single tatic should be unbeatable, even cloaking.
Ahh the risk and reward arguement. Thing is there is no reward from sitting in a safe being cloaked (safety isnt a reward. I get that if I stay logged off) therefore there shouldnt be any risk.
First, let me say that I agree that cloaked ships and especially cloaked cap ships should have awesome uses. Much the way you are currently using them. I have to say I think that is sweet. (are you recruiting?)
Second, I do want to add something, but first you need to know a little history so you understand why I think this.
I was in IRON for nearly a year. I spent most of that time in 0.0, fighting.
My single biggest annoyance was hostile ships that are able to operate in hostile territory, with 0 chance of being cought unless they want to engage. It should not be possible for hostile ships in hostile space to be "safe" in any way.
If you are operating on someone elses turf (empire or 0.0, turf is turf, sov is different), then you should be at their mercy if they decide to come after you. It should be easy to probe out ships. And it should be much harder to probe out cloaked ships. But under no circumstances should it be possible for a hostile ship to safe spot and be SAFE. You want safety, dock, or get to a friendly POS. Those should be the only real options for a hostile fleet to get safe.
Logging out is an entirely differnt subject... which we will see much more of after the new scanning and probing system comes into play. Because for most people, the only way to stay safe under the new system is to SS, log out, and log in an alt. The fact that doing this protects your ship entirely, is a DEEP flaw in the game.
In short, I don't want to see good play styles like "the esstablishment" has get destroyed. But even more important to me is that crappy play styles and meta-gaming cheats need to be addressed before we can balance the rest of the system.
The Deeper you stick it in your vien, the deeper the thoughts there is no more pain. |
Christos Hendez
The Priory
Shroud Of Darkness
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:08:00 -
[38]
Cloaked ships should use charges. Similar to cap boosters that have to be loaded into the cloaking device.
Balancing the size of charge (both weight and what the cloak can fit) and duration can then be tested easily.
Hows that for a compramise? 
|
Agent Li
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:09:00 -
[39]
You could even make something like a launchable smartbomb drone - kind of like depthcharges in antisubmarine warfare.
|
Zebler
Four Horsemen
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:49:00 -
[40]
I like the new ideas. I don't think it will affect the creative active player a great deal. Inactive players will get ganked, afterall its only fair.
I don't see what the problem is to be honest. With only a little time you can work out what the establishment tactics are. You know they are there, and if they are active then you will not be successfully able to probe them out. As always, people will just move.
The ability to sit cloaked, at a gate for hours and hours just waiting to pop someone is unfair. People need a counter.
We also need a counter to login traps. Establishment tactics currently make use of IN GAME tactics to get a gank. But others just use one cloaked ship, or an alt, and then all login at the right time.....that also needs fixing.
For every offense there should be a defense.
|
Aakron
Hybrid Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:55:00 -
[41]
surely if you move, whilst cloaked, by the time they probe your location you've moved another 100km away?
---
|
Ed Gein
Dark Blade Incorporated
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:57:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Aakron
surely if you move, whilst cloaked, by the time they probe your location you've moved another 100km away?
Scan probing in kali is lightening fast, and ships don't move all that fast cloaked. Especially ones not using cvops cloakers.
--------------------------------------------------------------
What do you call the person that brings a gun to a knife fight?
The Winner. |
Agent Li
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 17:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Aakron
surely if you move, whilst cloaked, by the time they probe your location you've moved another 100km away?
Just like antisubmarine warfare. Both sides have tools, both sides should use their brains.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari
The Keep
THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Well, i can agree with your point.
I see what you do as largely similar to the use of cloaked interdictors. I like cloaked interdictors alot :p
But, on the other hand, cloaked afk recons and covert ops in relatively densely populated areas in 0.0 have way too much effect on the practical possibility for locals to move around freely.
Put ten people afk under cloak in a central system in Curse. Put 5 more afk cloaked in 5 systems around it and half of your enemies will feel unable to move around. Add one or two cloaking dictors and you are completely suffocating enemy ability to move without even being at your keyboard.
That I do find a problem. Even without the afk component those enemies are way too hard to force out fo their safespots.
The question is what to do about it...
Personally, I wouldn't mind adding a timer that simply kicks people in space from the game after 30 minutes of inactivity, or only allows normal (non-covops) cloaks to be active for ten minutes at a time, with a 10 minute timer before you are able to activate again. But we all know that those wouldn't solve the issue either.
So what would ? Basing scanning on sovereignty ? Only adds more incentive to anchor more of those stupid pos's. Base it on the number of people scanning for you when you are cloaked ? Meh.
I don't know. I agree that simply making cloaked ships show on scanner is wrong, but the alternative sucks too.
Yea I can see why that could be an issue, but then again is it CCP's place to compensate for peoples lack of balls to come out and play when there is a lone hostile in system? In some respects its been benifitial in helping some people find their spine again.
last time I checked, you couldn't "grow some balls" and go play with the afk covie ops pilots. once you get the covie ops into a system and safespotted. They are invulnerable. You can never get them out. That is a problem.
The OP makes a very good point though. there are very definate tactical uses for cloaks. What is really happening is that some covie ops pilots are ruining it for everyone.
|
Godar Marak
Amarr
Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Agent Li
IMHO, stealth should be rather like submarines in real life.
No.
Sub,marines hide in an limited amount of space, covert ops hides not only in an unlimited amount os space but is also using electronics to actually make it untracable.
Thats been the concept so far, but now they are changing that.
--------------------
\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/
Cant we all just get along?
Wheres EVE heading?
|
Saladin
Minmatar
V I R I I
Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:41:00 -
[46]
I think this change is rubbish and defeats the whole purpose of cloaking. If someone does not have the balls to undock that is not my problem. Maybe this is CCPs way of bringing cloaking mods prices down.
----
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:52:00 -
[47]
TBH, it's the way Eve should be. Everything should have a counter, if you fit for it. Weapons Vs. tank, MWD vs. Webs, Tracking computer vs. Tracking disrupters. Sensor booster Vs Dampners., ect, ect, ect.
Please let us know what the current counter to cloaking is on Tranq.
All CCP is doing is allowing Probes, if you fit them, to be a counter to cloaking.
|
Cyrus Graham
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:54:00 -
[48]
This is something that I will watch with great interest, as I have put the majority of my points into being efficient in a Cov Ops Ship(which I can't yet afford, much less the cloaking device), so if this change invalidates what I've been working toward, I'm pretty much back at square one since I havent trained to be good in any other type of ship yet.
If you knew the number
Of the steps you'd ever take
Bitter, I wonder
Would you run or cease to walk? |
Daos Leghki
Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 18:55:00 -
[49]
I don't see what the hubub about probing down cloaked ships is. If you're actively hunting around, even with a non-covop ship, you can just warp off when they get to you, as you'll likely be many km away. If you're in a covop, you can warp off and have them not even notice it.
The ability to (slowly) probe down cloaked ships will only affect people who sit AFK. And sitting cloaked AFK is lame and should not be rewarded.
Repopulate Low-Sec |
Verone
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:02:00 -
[50]
Quote:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
cloak /kloʊk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klohk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
ûnoun
1.a loose outer garment, as a cape or coat.
2.something that covers or conceals; disguise; pretense: He conducts his affairs under a cloak of secrecy.
ûverb (used with object)
3.to cover with or as if with a cloak: She arrived at the opera cloaked in green velvet.
4.to hide; conceal: The mission was cloaked in mystery.
[Origin: 1175û1225; ME cloke (< OF) < ML cloca, var. of clocca bell-shaped cape, bell; see clock1]
Enough said I think.
Being cloaked should mean BEING CLOAKED.
What's the point in a cloaking device if it still leaves you open to detection?
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:03:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Daos Leghki
I don't see what the hubub about probing down cloaked ships is. If you're actively hunting around, even with a non-covop ship, you can just warp off when they get to you, as you'll likely be many km away. If you're in a covop, you can warp off and have them not even notice it.
The ability to (slowly) probe down cloaked ships will only affect people who sit AFK. And sitting cloaked AFK is lame and should not be rewarded.
Thats a bit of a gamble isnt it? Considering the much higher efficiancy of the new system, its alot harder to notice when your being probed down, your likely to have a force on top of you in a very short amount of time, and if they have an arazu with them there is simply no way you can uncloak and make a run for it.
|
Saladin
Minmatar
V I R I I
Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:06:00 -
[52]
The "counter" or disadvantage of a cloak is that your ship moves slow and you cant lock for a long time after decloaking. You cant fire or defend yourself while cloack. The covert ops cloaking device is an exception to some of those rules, but you pay through the nose for the device and you pay through the nose for the ship. Now with scanning them out their role has been eliminated. If a fleet wants to know if its being scouted all they have to do is use the scanner. Once the general area of the cov ops is known they will know which part of the gate snipers will come in. Forget about sneaking up and setting a perfect warp in to kill a hapless NPC'er, the scanner will make sure you are as visible as an EvE player at a playboy party.
CCP has become like a big political entity that only commicates in opposites. It wants to encourage small groups but makes it much harder for them to function. It wants carriers as front line ships but continues to gimp them.
----
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:12:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Verone
Quote:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
cloak /kloʊk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klohk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
ûnoun
1.a loose outer garment, as a cape or coat.
2.something that covers or conceals; disguise; pretense: He conducts his affairs under a cloak of secrecy.
ûverb (used with object)
3.to cover with or as if with a cloak: She arrived at the opera cloaked in green velvet.
4.to hide; conceal: The mission was cloaked in mystery.
[Origin: 1175û1225; ME cloke (< OF) < ML cloca, var. of clocca bell-shaped cape, bell; see clock1]
Enough said I think.
Being cloaked should mean BEING CLOAKED.
What's the point in a cloaking device if it still leaves you open to detection?
Good, now look up what the definition of to Probe is, and see how they will be balanced in Kali.
Cloaking is to Hide, and Probe is to search for.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:23:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 16/11/2006 19:27:28
Originally by: Rafein
Good, now look up what the definition of to Probe is, and see how they will be balanced in Kali.
Cloaking is to Hide, and Probe is to search for.
Lets forget about argueing the finer details of cloaking for a second because you know mine and others views on it, but lets look at the progression here:
Ship at object > find with scanner > ship goes to safe > use probes > ship fits cloak > ship is uncatchable but imobilized
Now lets look at that this becomes in Kali:
Ship at object > find with scanner > ship goes to safe > use probes > ship fits cloak > again use probes
I dont know about you but probes seem to now be countering two things here. Where is the progression?
|
Alekseyev Karrde
The Royal Guard
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:26:00 -
[55]
The sub warfare analogy is most appealing to me.
A cloaked ship could be discovered based on two things, one being action by the cloaker and the other action by the hunters.
A cloaking device, to me, should function alot like the silent propulsion system employed by the Red October in The Hunt for the Red October (tm Tom Clancy). To normal scanning, it should be undetectable even very close up but for a verrrrrrrry faint chance. Such chance could be whilst warping or perhaps when the cloaks timer cycles, maybe it has a chance of being scannable if someone happened to be looking at the right time.
On the hunters end, aside from watching their scanner like a hawk for a lil transient blip, the main detection action would be proximity and probes. Proximity is kind of a no brainer. Probes i think of as "active" sonar. If a cloaker is "pinged" by probes, it should be located and a certain, though limited, amount of information about the ship be conveyed. Maybe size would be appropriate (frigate, cruiser, Mothership) etc.
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:28:00 -
[56]
well, then answer my point about everything in Eve having counters, if you fit for them.
In your opinion, what should cloaking's counter be?
|
Verone
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:30:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Rafein
well, then answer my point about everything in Eve having counters, if you fit for them.
In your opinion, what should cloaking's counter be?
Not being able to be detected unless something gets in your range and uncloaks you.
Simple.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:31:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Rafein
well, then answer my point about everything in Eve having counters, if you fit for them.
In your opinion, what should cloaking's counter be?
Manual decloaking (ah the days of pilot skill and the psycology of the hunt) if its on a gate or at any object. If its in a safe then nothing. In this game even counters have counters and at some point one ends up winning over the other. In this instance the cloak should sit as king of the hill as when cloaked you cant do squat to anyone.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:38:00 -
[59]
I'd also like to bring up another point, what counter do we have to probes? Ah thats right the cloak What you want is role reversal...one that leaves the expensive hard to fit mod being countered by the cheap easy to fit one...
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:41:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Rawthorm
I'd also like to bring up another point, what counter do we have to probes? Ah thats right the cloak What you want is role reversal...one that leaves the expensive hard to fit mod being countered by the cheap easy to fit one...
not being where they are looking.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:50:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Rafein
Originally by: Rawthorm
I'd also like to bring up another point, what counter do we have to probes? Ah thats right the cloak What you want is role reversal...one that leaves the expensive hard to fit mod being countered by the cheap easy to fit one...
not being where they are looking.
Probes go all the way up to infinite range. Try again.
|
The Enslaver
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 19:56:00 -
[62]
Simple thing with cloaking imo; current cloaking specialist ships (covert, recon, stealth bombers) should not be detectable.
Other ships should be, but be about 4-5x harder to detect. Normal ships just aren't supposed to be used for geurilla warfare in the same way as recon ships are... And their use as 'omgsafespotcloak' ships is just pathetic imo.
And frontline use of motherships/carriers... Well, with the rigs to help your resists/tank and the massive HP boost, I really don't see much of a problem with using them on the front lines. With the current state of motherships on sisi, I would feel comfortable moving one into a group of 20-30 hostiles BS's if it was properly fitted.
--------
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Liisa
Freelancing Corp
Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:00:00 -
[63]
Perhaps it could be balanced with the accuracy against cloaked targets. Probing a non-cloaked target gets you pin-point accuracy whilst a cloaked targets lands you somewhere within a 200km sphere of the target.
Finding a cloak should be hard, but a probe should also give a general area where the cloaked targets are. Kind of like "they are in there somewhere."
Perhaps it is just that cloaks have been overused for suck afk tactics that ccp believed that there had to be a counter. Add to this that a mothership that is already immune to ew fits a cloak making it almost impossible to kill seems a bit extreme, but I realise that is the point of fitting a cloak on it, it is an expensive ship.
----------------------------------
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:01:00 -
[64]
true but it takes time. not as much as it used to, but it still does.
Also, what's to prevent you from just keeping moving the entire time, so even if you are detected, your gone before the enemy gang gets there. Probes are limited duration, only gotta outlast them.
|
Soriss
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:02:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
If you are operating on someone elses turf (empire or 0.0, turf is turf, sov is different), then you should be at their mercy if they decide to come after you. It should be easy to probe out ships. And it should be much harder to probe out cloaked ships. But under no circumstances should it be possible for a hostile ship to safe spot and be SAFE.
Interesting, turf is turf, however having a small mining POS there doesn't really make it turf. It would be interesting to have a nice BIG structure, that you can fit it in POS, for advanced scanning, or something. That would keep safe, the guys that really wanna be safe. And at the same time, prevent small pos's spammage all around eve.
So the basic would be. You want SAFE in your space, well ... it costs.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:08:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Soriss
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
If you are operating on someone elses turf (empire or 0.0, turf is turf, sov is different), then you should be at their mercy if they decide to come after you. It should be easy to probe out ships. And it should be much harder to probe out cloaked ships. But under no circumstances should it be possible for a hostile ship to safe spot and be SAFE.
Interesting, turf is turf, however having a small mining POS there doesn't really make it turf. It would be interesting to have a nice BIG structure, that you can fit it in POS, for advanced scanning, or something. That would keep safe, the guys that really wanna be safe. And at the same time, prevent small pos's spammage all around eve.
So the basic would be. You want SAFE in your space, well ... it costs.
See now there is an idea. A massive CPU intensive structure, a covert array if you like. Would let peoples covert ops in the same corp/alliance scan for cloaked ships in tandem with the array while its online in that system.
That is an idea I could live with so long as its prohibitive enough that its only a viable option in big well used systems. The other idea is make it an independant structure. Can only have one in an outpost system and it can be assaulted directly.
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:12:00 -
[67]
Only thing I would conceed is to base scan probes on Sig radius, so it finds huge things really fast, but takes longer to find smaller objects. would help covert op ships, and still be balanced.
|
The Enslaver
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 20:31:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Soriss
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
If you are operating on someone elses turf (empire or 0.0, turf is turf, sov is different), then you should be at their mercy if they decide to come after you. It should be easy to probe out ships. And it should be much harder to probe out cloaked ships. But under no circumstances should it be possible for a hostile ship to safe spot and be SAFE.
Interesting, turf is turf, however having a small mining POS there doesn't really make it turf. It would be interesting to have a nice BIG structure, that you can fit it in POS, for advanced scanning, or something. That would keep safe, the guys that really wanna be safe. And at the same time, prevent small pos's spammage all around eve.
So the basic would be. You want SAFE in your space, well ... it costs.
See now there is an idea. A massive CPU intensive structure, a covert array if you like. Would let peoples covert ops in the same corp/alliance scan for cloaked ships in tandem with the array while its online in that system.
That is an idea I could live with so long as its prohibitive enough that its only a viable option in big well used systems. The other idea is make it an independant structure. Can only have one in an outpost system and it can be assaulted directly.
For the ability to scan cloaked ships? Way too expensive to be viable. Which is probably your aim
I'd go with a system to allow all alliance characters to warp to hostiles (except cloaked, which would use my previous suggestion) with a 1-2 minute time delay. If the hostiles stop moving, you can warp straight to them. Defenders need more direct bonuses in that form. Make it a POS module that sits outside of the forcefield with about 1m HP.
--------
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:00:00 -
[69]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Soriss
Originally by: Locke DieDrake
If you are operating on someone elses turf (empire or 0.0, turf is turf, sov is different), then you should be at their mercy if they decide to come after you. It should be easy to probe out ships. And it should be much harder to probe out cloaked ships. But under no circumstances should it be possible for a hostile ship to safe spot and be SAFE.
Interesting, turf is turf, however having a small mining POS there doesn't really make it turf. It would be interesting to have a nice BIG structure, that you can fit it in POS, for advanced scanning, or something. That would keep safe, the guys that really wanna be safe. And at the same time, prevent small pos's spammage all around eve.
So the basic would be. You want SAFE in your space, well ... it costs.
See now there is an idea. A massive CPU intensive structure, a covert array if you like. Would let peoples covert ops in the same corp/alliance scan for cloaked ships in tandem with the array while its online in that system.
That is an idea I could live with so long as its prohibitive enough that its only a viable option in big well used systems. The other idea is make it an independant structure. Can only have one in an outpost system and it can be assaulted directly.
For the ability to scan cloaked ships? Way too expensive to be viable. Which is probably your aim
I'd go with a system to allow all alliance characters to warp to hostiles (except cloaked, which would use my previous suggestion) with a 1-2 minute time delay. If the hostiles stop moving, you can warp straight to them. Defenders need more direct bonuses in that form. Make it a POS module that sits outside of the forcefield with about 1m HP.
Of course its my aim The point ultimatly here tho is that cloaked ships dont need to be and shouldnt be scannable, period. Its a dirty and cheap counter to an expensive and heavily penilized module.
|
The Enslaver
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:05:00 -
[70]
The price of T2 cloaks is artificial, and the price of any T2 item is irrelevant in balancing issues.
The negatives are not severe, if they were you wouldn't use them on *every* ship, as you do now.
Simply, non-coal specialist ships should not be able to remain unscannable. Period.
--------
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:05:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Vizgoth
Rawthorn, you talk as if AFK cloaking is a random occurance. It isnt and it happens everyday and in large ammounts in 0.0. I have seen 1-15 man blobs at least a couple times a week in 0.0 doing this. BoB, RA, GoonSwarm, Ka-TeT, AAA, just to name a few in the last month. BTW goonswarm does it the most Anyway, it is a bad problem and can shut down a whole region from mining/ ratting for hours and hours. Who wants to sits in a system in a gang looking for cloaked ships for hours knowing you will never be able to find them and they may be afk. That takes away the fun of the game for hundreds of players.
IMO they should 1) kick people who have been idle for 45 min. (no it does not happen atm) 2) make cap use a lot heavier for non cov ops ships. Cov ops cant do much alone so it isnt so bad with them but, when you got an astarte and arazu cloaked in your system from down time to down time, even those 2 ships could pose a serious prob for any non cap ship.
OH TEH HORRORZZZ!!!! Locked out of mining for hours!!!!! The apocalypse is close! 
|
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:08:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Rafein
TBH, it's the way Eve should be. Everything should have a counter, if you fit for it. Weapons Vs. tank, MWD vs. Webs, Tracking computer vs. Tracking disrupters. Sensor booster Vs Dampners., ect, ect, ect.
Please let us know what the current counter to cloaking is on Tranq.
All CCP is doing is allowing Probes, if you fit them, to be a counter to cloaking.
Ah yes, but everything DOESNT have a counter sir. EW will remain the big "IWIN" it is now. Stabs are nerfed to keep the permajammed sucker right where he is. Where's the meaningful counter there? ECCM? riiiight.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:10:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Rawthorm
Edited by: Rawthorm on 16/11/2006 15:08:26
Originally by: maarud
Reward - Keep your enemy extreamly paranoid about his movements and possible severly limiting their movement
Risk - None.
Reward - Being able to carefully select your targets to ships you can easily take down without much risk to your own.
Risk - None.
I could probably go on...
Listen, I'm not dissagreeing with you, I just think there should be a little bit of reward for the guy that spends the time and effort (and it should be considerable time and effort) to find a cloaked ship.
Also, you are sitting in a system at your ship, you should be checking your scanner. Recon and covert ship should ring alarms and you should be trying to keep an eye open for probes too.
If you are afk... well then you should have logged off.
TBH tho, point one is generaly a waste of your time just sitting there and for that reason most people just don't do it (one could also argue its the same risk > reward ratio as using alt spies). As for point two, that requires being within visual and scramble range in most cases to be effective. That also brings the danger of being decloaked and the usual problems of recalibration and lock time if you do decide to engage. It isnt a clear cut advantage as you'd belive and the cloaks many down sides tend to be a risk in their own right.
In any case don't think im argueing for the sake of it, I do aprechiate the support on increasing the dificulty of a cloaked find (and tbh most times it should fail outright) and a compremise is ultimatly better than nothing. I am however still of the firm belief that the cloak is as it should be in its current form.
I disagree, point 1 is pretty critical. We've had a guy in Dek for the last 2 weeks in 3 Force Recon ships camping station systems, and we more or less can't do a thing about it because he gets to dictate the terms of engagement. He'll attack someone, run off to his SS, and go do something for an hour and then come right back and do it again, all day long. Since we never know when he'll be back and he's using Force Recons, he has the ultimate element of surprise and gets to minimize whatever danger he's in. Clearly something needs to be changed so that he can't go AFK like this if we're to have any good chance of stopping him.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:15:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Aakron
surely if you move, whilst cloaked, by the time they probe your location you've moved another 100km away?
I'd say this could definitely be an issue. I've had the BE guys go AFK before in an Inty with the MWD locked open, of which we couldn't do anything about because with Gistii gear and Snake implants he was faster than anything we had and well out of the range of even snipers by the time we could probe out his current grid and get a covert ops ship there to let the gang warp to him.
For cloaked BS's this won't be an issue, but it certainly is for ships that can use the covert ops cloak. They need to be able to move and I don't disagree, but if anything is done about AFK cloaking I don't want to see AFK-on-the-move cloaking to be the replacement.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:18:00 -
[75]
To summarize: Rawthorn is right.
The aim is to preserve diversity in combat and to make avenues available for original tactical thinkers to come up with ideas that do not begin and end with the blob mentality.
If ones only aim is to make alliance X or Y's space more defendable then the logic of alot of these new scanning schemes becomes apparent. But for the life of me I cannot understand why alliances have to lower themselves to looking towards modify game mechanics to make their space safer\more defensible or what not. Why not instead outthink the opposition. Lay a trap and see if your trap is good enough to wrest the quarry from their safespot.
|
Gornax Garrul
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:40:00 -
[76]
There is the possibility that this change to cloaking being vulnerable to probing is a precursor to changes to Local. Currently, you know if a cloaked ship is in system mainly because the show up in Local and you can't scan them. If they are planning to change Local so that you only appear if you say something in that channel, then you would never know that a cloaked ship is in the system (making it pretty close to an "I win" button). However, if you make it so that a cloak signature shows up on a probe (but not on a scan), then the paranoid players have a counter.
GG
**
People like you make me want to access your brain and type "rm -rf /*"
|
Zak Kingsman
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 21:44:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Zak Kingsman on 16/11/2006 21:46:49
Quote:
Lets forget about argueing the finer details of cloaking for a second because you know mine and others views on it, but lets look at the progression here:
Ship at object > find with scanner > ship goes to safe > use probes > ship fits cloak > ship is uncatchable but imobilized
Now lets look at that this becomes in Kali:
Ship at object > find with scanner > ship goes to safe > use probes > ship fits cloak > again use probes
I dont know about you but probes seem to now be countering two things here. Where is the progression?
You can find ships at safe w/out probes, so you can fix your progression there.
Ship at object find with scanner fast > ship goes to safe > find with scanner slow/find with probes fast > ship fits cloak... nothing
now you have ship at object find with scanner fast, ship goes to safe > find w/ scanner slow/find w/ probes fast > ship fits cloak find with probes maybe
A cov-ops ship w/ appropriate cloak will still be next to immune as you can just start moving in a given direction and by the time anyone gets to your safespot you'll be safely away and still cloaked.
Also the reports i've been getting is that ship size determines how accurate the scan may or may not be. So yeah you're cloaked mothership might have a problem but do you really think motherships should be running around completely immune to attack?
For people fitting a cloak on a ship that's not designed for it, well then they're not as safe, but then again they're using a regular ship.
Seems progression is fixed not broken w/ this. And you still have total immunity from scanners if you change positions constantly. This isn't going to change.
Down with invincibility. I very much approve.
|
Karoth Tyu
FATAL REVELATIONS
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 22:43:00 -
[78]
Joy.
So with cloaking effectively neutralized now, there'll be even more Control+Q and log-in traps.
Hurray, just what the game needed
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 23:09:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Davlin Lotze
To summarize: Rawthorn is right.
The aim is to preserve diversity in combat and to make avenues available for original tactical thinkers to come up with ideas that do not begin and end with the blob mentality.
If ones only aim is to make alliance X or Y's space more defendable then the logic of alot of these new scanning schemes becomes apparent. But for the life of me I cannot understand why alliances have to lower themselves to looking towards modify game mechanics to make their space safer\more defensible or what not. Why not instead outthink the opposition. Lay a trap and see if your trap is good enough to wrest the quarry from their safespot.
Rawthorn is incorrect. Being invulnerable to attack is not good game design. If you're not AFK you can always move around and avoid being probed out. Cloaks, and specifically recons, allow you to choose the time and range of your engagement. This is already an incredably powerful tool. The current ability to be 100% impossible to find is unfair and unbalanced.
Because I said so...
|
Hoshi
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 23:43:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Karoth Tyu
Joy.
So with cloaking effectively neutralized now, there'll be even more Control+Q and log-in traps.
Hurray, just what the game needed
Posted this earlier in the thread but seems none read it.
On SiSi you can NOT I repeat NOT probe for cloaked ships.
This might be a bug or it might be that CCP changed their mind since that blog was posted. What I am saying is it's a bit too early to scream that the sky is falling down.
|
JForce
The Arrow Project
The ARR0W Project
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 00:04:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hoshi
Originally by: Karoth Tyu
Joy.
So with cloaking effectively neutralized now, there'll be even more Control+Q and log-in traps.
Hurray, just what the game needed
Posted this earlier in the thread but seems none read it.
On SiSi you can NOT I repeat NOT probe for cloaked ships.
This might be a bug or it might be that CCP changed their mind since that blog was posted. What I am saying is it's a bit too early to scream that the sky is falling down.
Can you elaborate? What happens when you try to probe for them? No results? How have you tested it?
|
Athena Starfire
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 00:09:00 -
[82]
And I thought us carebears are said to whine alot.. this is rich..
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 00:29:00 -
[83]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Defenders need more direct bonuses in that form. Make it a POS module that sits outside of the forcefield with about 1m HP.
Sure, if the defenders get a -99% hp modifier to balance their invulnrable safespots in their POS. Stop trying to make it impossible to attack without 10x the defenders numbers. That's all it is.
Back on the more serious side, a big POS module would suit me... although a cloaked ship shiuld be warned of it, so they KNOW they're not safe (underspace ripples or whatever). It could even be a moderate cost one, if it had a cooldown.
//Maya |
BlackMoon Thrawn
Minmatar
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 01:20:00 -
[84]
It's my understanding that there will be different scanners in kali, directional and probes. If cloaked ships could not be picked up on scanners and the minimum warp to distance on probes is 100k, would that be acceptable? You still get to use claoks for tactical advantages such as at a gate following haulers through. Defenders would have a chance to catch non-dedicated cloak ships and cov-ops etc could warp off if thier spot is busted. You can scan for probes and move your ship if they get close or stay cloaked and hope for the best. This solution requieres players to be at the keyboard if they want to ensure survival and allows virtual invulnerability to cov-ops as intended.
|
Ekscalybur
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 01:38:00 -
[85]
An easy way to fix this problem is to make the cloaking dynamics in Eve more like the cat and mouse game that characterizes submarine warfare. Submarines are in effect cloaked under their normal operating procedures, finding one requires you either have a very good idea of its general location and heading, or actively trying to 'ping' it out. An active search would be just like scan probing, and should have a reasonably high chance of outing the cloaked ship. Just like with submarines though, once you 'ping' the scan probes, the cloaked ship knows exactly where you are, what type of probe you're using (which should point to what type of ship is dropping them), and that should give the cloaked pilot a decent chance to avoid your scan. It should require his attention to do so, but it shouldn't be difficult.
This would mean that afk cloakers are very easily and quickly scanned out, and cloakers that are attentive can go about remaining that way. Its win-win too, even if the cloaker remains cloaked and the pursuer hasn't revealed him, you have effectively changed his priorities and gotten him to drop what it was you wanted him to drop so he could focus on remaining undiscovered. This way, a handful of people can't lock down an entire fleet, it would only take a handful of people to otherwise occupy the cloakers. Cloakers wouldn't have an i-win button, nor would their module be made ineffective.
Dropping scan probes should set off alarms on cloak fitted ships. Give covops ships the ability to drop a special jetcan (with a very short lifespan, lol) that acts as a countermeasure/decoy and they are again made more effective at the stealth game than any other ship.
|
DeMundus
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 01:44:00 -
[86]
I agree with my corp m8 here, we have talked about it alot.
BUT there is another thing thats gonna ruin guerilla warfare - and make pirates look bad... the HP increase.
It will take alot longer to kill a BS or any other ship - we will see more ppl runing back to the gate, we will have bigger problem getting into populated 0.0 and taking a target down fast - b4 backup arrive...
/DeM
Abandon all hope But take care of teh cake!11 - Immy |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 01:46:00 -
[87]
One such counter would be flares, beacons fitted much like probes and dropped in systems with varied signatures, resembling that of frigates to motherships depending on the cost of the flare and skill of the decoy pilot.
Something's rotten with the state of the servers. |
Dao 2
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 02:00:00 -
[88]
Wow I didn't know they were gonna do this, I think its a horrible idea and completely ruins the purpose of the cloak. I agree with the previously noted person, let it tell you if theres one with your scanning range, but not let you go to it and not tell you what shiptype.
------------------------------------------------
NEWLY ADDED ON 1/19 (though applies to all posts before ;p)
the usual "I don't represent my corp or alliance" and stuffs like that
Also the gal |
Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 03:00:00 -
[89]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Davlin Lotze
To summarize: Rawthorn is right.
The aim is to preserve diversity in combat and to make avenues available for original tactical thinkers to come up with ideas that do not begin and end with the blob mentality.
If ones only aim is to make alliance X or Y's space more defendable then the logic of alot of these new scanning schemes becomes apparent. But for the life of me I cannot understand why alliances have to lower themselves to looking towards modify game mechanics to make their space safer\more defensible or what not. Why not instead outthink the opposition. Lay a trap and see if your trap is good enough to wrest the quarry from their safespot.
Rawthorn is incorrect. Being invulnerable to attack is not good game design. If you're not AFK you can always move around and avoid being probed out. Cloaks, and specifically recons, allow you to choose the time and range of your engagement. This is already an incredably powerful tool. The current ability to be 100% impossible to find is unfair and unbalanced.
Didnt you really mean to say "being invulnerable to attack is not good game design"....from the vantage point of a an entity that lives and breaths and depends on being able to blob all that opposes it into submission?
Or, are you arguing that ALL CLOAKED SHIPS SHOULD BE ABLE TO WARP WHILST CLOAKED???? You have to make that concession is seems to me to sustain your position. TBH, this is just another case of large alliances and entities wanting to "have it both ways."
|
Herring
Pimpology
Pimpology in Mining Player
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 03:26:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Vizgoth
Rawthorn, you talk as if AFK cloaking is a random occurance. It isnt and it happens everyday and in large ammounts in 0.0. I have seen 1-15 man blobs at least a couple times a week in 0.0 doing this. BoB, RA, GoonSwarm, Ka-TeT, AAA, just to name a few in the last month. BTW goonswarm does it the most Anyway, it is a bad problem and can shut down a whole region from mining/ ratting for hours and hours. Who wants to sits in a system in a gang looking for cloaked ships for hours knowing you will never be able to find them and they may be afk. That takes away the fun of the game for hundreds of players.
IMO they should 1) kick people who have been idle for 45 min. (no it does not happen atm) 2) make cap use a lot heavier for non cov ops ships. Cov ops cant do much alone so it isnt so bad with them but, when you got an astarte and arazu cloaked in your system from down time to down time, even those 2 ships could pose a serious prob for any non cap ship.
Here here. And while they're at it make cloaking devices use a highslot - make the afk cloakers pay for the ability to remain unfound in dps, when they do gank someone.
Wishing for better mining ships in a system near you. |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 03:42:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Sales Merchant
Originally by: Rawthorm
2)More front line use of carriers/motherships
Capital ships need a big boost in hitpoints to justify using them in frontline fighting. As it stands the cost:hitpoints ratio for capital ships is very bad.
Capships have several times more HP on sisi. They're going to have plenty of HP.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 03:58:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Ange1 on 17/11/2006 04:03:04
I've employed the cloaking device on most of my combat ships (regardless of shiptype) for some 2 years now. It doesn't stop me from losing ships, its never stopped my corpmates from losing ships. It diminishes the risk of course, but isn't that the goal of most organised PvP groups? Maximum gains for minimum loss? I've seen the cloak as simply a different, much more expensive, way to both fight and evade. The penalties for fitting cloaks on combat ships not designed for them are quite high: They're very expensive, they take up alot of CPU, it gimps your locking time as well as locking at all after decloaking.
With local helping people show that you're there, one has to find means of lulling your prey into a false sense of security by being unable to see you. Lets be honest, the chances of a target going through a camp that they can see compared to one they can't see, is far lower. Targets are more likely to avoid you and most people have scouts to inform them of camps to avoid. Being as I am a Pirate, this is not good for business.
One of the main reasons our Mothership has a cloak is for its protection. The Establishment is not a huge alliance/corp, with resources capable of defending it with a fleet, should the worst happen. We invested many billions in its construction and we have a right to protect it as best we can. Given the notoriety we've gained in the highly aggressive use of our Nyx, its the one Mothership out of all Motherships that everyone seems to want a piece of - Its only logical that we be as vigiliant as possible in making sure we don't lose it.
To put it simply, cloaking is an excellent weapon when you use it properly - both for offence and defence - and I love it.
Now bearing in mind what I just said in support of cloaks, I do agree that there should be a more effective way to counter a cloak than simply bumping within 2km of the cloaked target. However, if they are going to be as easy to scan as an uncloaked ship, then its not living up to its name very well.
I have no objection to a cloaked ship being scannable by probes, however it should be made a difficult and inaccurate task compared to an uncloaked ship. I would not object to a POS structure, one that could only be used under sovereignty, to scan for ships - cloaked or otherwise - with greater ease. Though it may be a fine line on how uber this may be for the defender. I saw in the database along time ago some sort of "cloak pulse" that looked like a smartbomb that finds cloaks, just with a much bigger radius than a smartbomb. A device like this would be highly useful in gate camps for example.
So to sum up. I love cloaks and would like to continue employing them as a tactical weapon, but I wouldn't object either to make it easier for people to counter them. It just has to be done right
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 04:07:00 -
[93]
Originally by: DeMundus
Do you want CCP to hold your hand? If 3 recons can uncloak and kill you in you home system - you should think about joining an alliance that can protect you. Its you "home" so guard it. Usually I see this thing and the friendly locals don't bother comming in as backup... make ppl deserve thier 0.0 space
Asking for cloaks to make a ship unlocatable is bogus. There has to be some balance in EVE, and if you can simply warp, then toggle a cloak and NEVER be found, there's no balance to it. It'd be one thing if it were only done by cov-ops ships, but ANY ship can fit a cloak and do that.
You can't say 'guard your home system from those force recons', then turn around and say you support Raw's arguements, because a good Recon pilot isn't going to get taken down unless you setup a **** good trap to get them.
You say to make people deserve their 0.0 space, what about making people deserve their ships? A simple change to scan probes that will remove some of the insanity from cloaked defense, and it's the end of the world to some because now a ship setup specificly to find them, is 'overpowered'?
Unless something was changed, probing a cloaked ship isn't a walk in the park, and unless the cloaked ship sits somewhere idle for a long period of time, they're likely going to be fine. Not to mention if the people looking for you aren't using probes, they'll never find you regardless.
I'm all for small engagements, fights where there's maybe a dozen people total are alot more fun than *primary*-boom fleet fights, but making a probe change that removes the untouchableness of even a basic cloak, usable by pretty much every ship in EVE, isn't not some end-of-the-world thing. Overall it's a needed change.
Maybe this is a good time for CCP to introduce t2 cloaks and cov-ops cloaks. Make the T1 versions less effective, and thus, easier to scan down perhaps?
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Zak Kingsman
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 05:34:00 -
[94]
I actually REALLY like the required fuel idea.
lets say half a cargo hold worth of fuel gives you 15-30 minutes worth of use (most likely length of time adjusted by skill)
Keep the cloaking ability as powerful as it is now. That lets you use cloaks for what they were intended. Evading camps and setting up jump in points.
Now the force recon ships are obviously intended to be able to break a gate camp. If they ever fix the fact that you can't equip a cloak and a cyno at the same time that is.
Recon jumps in cloaked warps to a safespot generates a cyno and w/ a titan you can get your whole fleet in, or w/out it you can get capship support for when you jump the rest of your fleet into the system through the gate.
If you make cloaking vulnerable to scanning simple things like setting up a warp in point for your fleet lose viability. But if you do nothing to cloaking you continue to have the invincible ship. So allow the ability to remain just set a time and logistics limit on it w/ fuel of some sort. That will mean that mothership could potentially stay cloaked for very long periods of time, but of course you'll lose a lot of space that you would normally use on modules for your refits.
It doesnt even necisarily have to be expensive fuel, so long as it takes volume and is a finite resource its enough.
|
Hoshi
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 06:58:00 -
[95]
Originally by: JForce
Originally by: Hoshi
Posted this earlier in the thread but seems none read it.
On SiSi you can NOT I repeat NOT probe for cloaked ships.
This might be a bug or it might be that CCP changed their mind since that blog was posted. What I am saying is it's a bit too early to scream that the sky is falling down.
Can you elaborate? What happens when you try to probe for them? No results? How have you tested it?
Correct no result, just like it is on TQ now. I have tested using both different ship probes as well as the upto 100 times stronger but very short range exploration probes (so it's not that they are just much harder to find).
The ship I test to search for was an alt sitting in a scorpion with a protocloak. Also unclocked and scanned again from time to time to make sure it still showed up on the normal scans. No probe so far has ever returned a cloaked ship.
|
Malakai0
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 07:10:00 -
[96]
As it is now, if you have a 0.0 alliance, there's practically nothing you can do about cloaked ships. Especially recon ships, they just fly around killing people with impunity and cloaking and running off @the first sign of trouble.
A few cloaked ships can choke up several systems for as long as they like, with virtual impunity.
Not solidly opinionated either way, just an observation from personal experience.
_________________________
- We are Eye Of God, being so, we see the big picture.
- Axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest AND if its not self-evident to you, thats what |
Caleb Paine
ISS Navy Task Force
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 09:17:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Caleb Paine on 17/11/2006 09:19:52
Idea;
If a ship is in the same grid for an amount of time (10 mins, 20, 30?) his cloak will leave an 'imprint' which makes it able to probe for it. This will mean that people can't just sit there, they will have to warp off at times from which they will be uncovered.
This makes using cloaking a bit more of an active affair instead of going on holiday after hitting the cloakbutton while STILL granting native cloakers a 'bonus' to actually flying a proper cloaking ahip as they can warp while cloaked.
I really hope the probing for a cloaker doesn't return a shiptype, at best it could return an "imprint size" which could be related to the general mass of the ship so you'd know it's a frigate, cruiser, BS or bigger but certainly not more detailed than that. And even then, native cloakers should have some defense against that.
Knowing if the cloaker is a covops or a recon is very important info, it's too much info imo... it's cloaked for a reason.
--------------------------------
ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest. |
Ione Hunt
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 09:49:00 -
[98]
I love the new scan changes coming with Kali!
Having said that, I don't think it's fair if it takes the same amount of time to scan a cloaked ship than a non-cloaked ship. Also, accuracy should be worse if you're trying to probe for a cloaked ship.
A way of implementing that would be the introduction of a new "anti-claok" scanprobe. You'd need top skills ('cause probing something cloaked should be harder!!), the scan would take at least double the time, and accuracy would be at around 100m with a small chance of landing closer to the target if you max out your skills.
________________________________________________
|
Ardan
Minmatar
The Shadow Order
The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.11.17 14:08:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Ardan on 17/11/2006 14:09:31
Ok, just some thoughts
Fuel:
Have the cloak slowly drain the cap. Use cap boosters as fuel for the cloak.
Sensors:
Due to the fact that radar and other sensor are like flashlights. They can be detected much farther away than they are effective. A cloaked ship should be running passive sensors only. Or the sensor signature would give them away. That would mean they would need to get closer to their target to get info and it would take longer to get that info.
Detection:
Navys have used special ships to combat subs (i.e. cloaked ships) since their inception. Since the h.p. boost has greatly reduced the effectiveness of destroyers. Give them a new task. Locateing cloaked ships. (99% reduction in the use of sonar mod?) The cloaked ship would then have to get around the destroyer to get to its target, with out getting caught. The destroyer would have to actively search for the cloaked ship. Maybe a special missile to fire at ghost sigs to decloak a ship. (If the ghost turned out to be real).
Stealth bombers
Fitted with a passive targeter, they should be able to passive lock their target while cloaked. (at a greatly reduced range of course.) Then just uncloak to attack.
Just some thoughts.
"Let them hate us as long as they Fear us." Colligula |
Kel Gunrunner
Caldari
Dark Destiny Inc.
Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 00:01:00 -
[100]
I agree with establishment, cloaks nerf your fitting, whats the point if u can be scanned out, in my opinion all its gonna do is greatly increase log off tactics, which would just plain suck, reconns are strong ships in small scale engagments yes, but they die like the rest when it comes to a fight unless they play smart,
and as far as capital ships go being abe to scan em out when there cloaked would mean they would be rarely used, especialy in outnumbered situations like what Rawthorm is talking about, im sure their nyx would be ok most of the time (coz its a beast ;), but a carriers would be massivly endangered, they would become defensive weapons only, never to be moved from pos's and thats realy sad.
|
Jason Marshall
Infinite Innovations
Astral Wolves
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 00:38:00 -
[101]
Lable cloaked ships has "Unknown Entities" along with the new hidden contenet...that way you dont know if its a cloaked ship or some hidden complex 
Tacky lens flares in sigs 4tw! |
Wendat Huron
Lupus Industries
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 01:59:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Jason Marshall
Lable cloaked ships has "Unknown Entities" along with the new hidden contenet...that way you dont know if its a cloaked ship or some hidden complex
Now if only NPC complexes were somewhat dynamic this would be super, people scanning the same system day in and day out will know the difference, not saying they shouldn't over time, just saying these complexes are soon a non-factor.
|
Crimsonjade
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 02:20:00 -
[103]
OP hits this problem on the nose with his post.
an outnumbered force uses cloaks so we can judge when and were we attack, limiting the smaller attacker to a head to head fight is just stupid and silly.
cloaked ships are a counter to a outnumbered force who must fight. limiting them to non cloaked ships will just give the advantage to the larger force.
eve was designed a pvp game and why people are afraid to move around with cloaked hostile ships in the area, is a personal problem on their part.
scaning a cloaked ship is supposedly possible( know of someone who says they can do it on the test server)
a cloak is SUPPOSED TO CLOAK a ship why else the word CLOAK?
|
Burakus
Panzershrek
Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 03:25:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
A compromise needs to be made. Should a scan allow detection of cloaked ships? Probably. Should it be easy or quick to find them? Heck no.
You have many good points, and I hope CCP takes them into account.
I agree.
______________
I once one-volleyed a veldspar asteroid. |
Drusus Rensus
Gallente
Klima Galactic
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 03:51:00 -
[105]
Just limit the range of "high definition" probes that can sniff out a cloaked ship to an few AU or so. That way the hunters will have to hunt systematically, rather than just sitting in one spot firing probes all over creation. They will eventually find the AFK stationary target. They probably have little chance of finding or tracking a cloaked ship that is active and moving.
|
Xelios
Minmatar
Rampage Eternal
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 03:57:00 -
[106]
To be fair it won't be that quick to scan cloaked ships. You'd have to start with a 42au probe in most cases, then 12, then 3 until you are finally dropped in the same grid as the cloaker. At this point all he needs to do is be at his keyboard, warp somewhere else and you spend the next 10 minutes flying around in circles trying to figure out if he's still there or not.
Cloaked recons will still be the hardest ships to find, meaning lots of unsuccessful probe attempts before you get anywhere near it. As for cloaked motherships... too bad I guess. It's a bit daft to make something as big as a mothership impossible to find just by fitting a 20 mil cloaking device. With the HP buffs in Kali a mothership with faction fit should be able to tank a load of hostiles, not to mention the 25 or so fighters it can throw back. If you get outblobbed and have to log off instead of sitting somewhere cloaked then I guess the alliance you provoked was successful in defending its space...
|
Paladineguru
Gallente
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 05:05:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Paladineguru on 20/11/2006 05:11:01
Originally by: Wild Rho
I liked someones idea a while ago of cloaks consuming fuel to operate over time meaning that while you can use the cloak to hide from enemies you can't sit at an ss with impunity 23 hours a day.
great another rescource like ice. you know there gets to be a
point where you have to say hey its a game i know it would be one way in real world conditions. but if RL were fun we wouldnt be here. creating one more rescource for people to have to go get just to use something they already spent time training for and earning isk for is just plain stupid
oh and could the op pls link me to a thread where this change is slated to happen , because its not on sisi and i havnt seen it mentioned in any of the blogs ive read
tbh until someone shows me where it says its coming, this is all just a rumor.
|
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 06:51:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 20/11/2006 06:51:23
Originally by: Paladineguru
great another rescource like ice. you know there gets to be a
point where you have to say hey its a game i know it would be one way in real world conditions. but if RL were fun we wouldnt be here. creating one more rescource for people to have to go get just to use something they already spent time training for and earning isk for is just plain stupid
oh and could the op pls link me to a thread where this change is slated to happen , because its not on sisi and i havnt seen it mentioned in any of the blogs ive read
tbh until someone shows me where it says its coming, this is all just a rumor.
seriously pls show me, because the last week and a half i been on kali testing most stuff thats coming and neither in game, in official release threads or any sticky'd discussion in kali forums have i seen this.
Here about half way down.
|
Paladineguru
Gallente
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 14:17:00 -
[109]
thank you
And for the record STOP THE DETECTION OF CLOAKED ships
with easy cheap mods. most of us didnt train 4 months of skills jus tto get the shaft by tux. seriously why does that dude still have a job when most of the stuff he does people A dont want or B he obviously hads no clue wtf hes doing.
|
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 17:38:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Crimsonjade
cloaked ships are a counter to a outnumbered force who must fight. limiting them to non cloaked ships will just give the advantage to the larger force.
I always thought that guerrila forces used their smaller size, speed and maneuverability to hit where the enemy are not and generally run circles around a slower harder to coordinate blob. Guerrilla forces should be always on the move, the pinnicale of roaming PvP.
Guerrilla warfare needs to be absolutely supported by CCP and piracy needs to remain a valid playstyle. But changes need to happen that encourage active play.
Being able to Afk in a cloaked ship in a system that you know the enemy frequents is just broken. I know because I have used afk cloaking myself, and have gotten tons of kills on low sec pirate gate snipers. It is extremely effective, and this is vs people with guns on. Imagine how powerful this is against someones main mining systems, or when using alts so that while one character is "afk pvping" you can have others doing active stuff.
There is little problem with cloaking if the cloaker has to actually be at their keyboard and has something to fear if they afk for too long.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 20:18:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Saladin
The "counter" or disadvantage of a cloak is that your ship moves slow and you cant lock for a long time after decloaking. You cant fire or defend yourself while cloack. The covert ops cloaking device is an exception to some of those rules, but you pay through the nose for the device and you pay through the nose for the ship. Now with scanning them out their role has been eliminated. If a fleet wants to know if its being scouted all they have to do is use the scanner. Once the general area of the cov ops is known they will know which part of the gate snipers will come in. Forget about sneaking up and setting a perfect warp in to kill a hapless NPC'er, the scanner will make sure you are as visible as an EvE player at a playboy party.
CCP has become like a big political entity that only commicates in opposites. It wants to encourage small groups but makes it much harder for them to function. It wants carriers as front line ships but continues to gimp them.
Very "fun" and very false. You really think a NPC'er will active scan every 3 minutes (the time to scan with a recon probe), and drop a probe every 10 minutes? Maybe if he is rattling in a belt (but as he change belt the precise probes become lest useful as those have limited range), but in a mission wile fighting hordes of NPC?
So far (first 2 pages of the thread I have noticed 2 people that have tested the probes in Revelation, the others are pre-whining whitout idea of how they work.
And those whining "Cloack are nerfed because of the abuse of a little minoriti of players, it is not right" can eat it, as they are the sam that say "Nerfing warp stabber is right, they are abused" even if they are abused by a minority of the players.
If abusing make rignt nerfing, it is always right, not only when it is useful for you.
|
Da Ram
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 20:50:00 -
[112]
Cloaking makes you lose so many important abilities at the moment.
Should it be rather easy to scan out cloaked ships in Kali there needs to be something changed with the pemalties cloak bring.
The idea of stealh bombers to be allowed locking while cloaked is a nice start.
Reasoning that cloaking needs a counter is fair - but give cloakers some counter to that as well - maybe "crybabies", beacons they can deploy to give false signatures.
Cloaks should not make you totally invulnerable but very, very - VERY hard to scan down with probes.
Though Eve cant be compared to the RL I d like to defuse the submarine example.
Submarines can fire their deadly payload while being "cloaked" - no ship to date can do this.
A submarine that chooses to switch off its sensor and sit dead in the water can be found - but only with the opponent using up a big load of time and resources.
Make it that way and things will be shiny for both sides.
Ram
|
Takahashi Arran
Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 21:11:00 -
[113]
it is my opinion that cloacked ships are not the problem at all.. instead it is cloacked ships AFK that presents an issue too most players. It seems simple to me that these ships should only be scannable by using the new, hard to fit, hard to use, long time period exploreation probes. Having said that a cloacked mothership should probably be easier to find than a covert ops (but possibly not that much easier..)
|
Lubricity
Solidline Enterprise
Kith of Venal
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 21:21:00 -
[114]
I'm going to miss being able to cloak my transport ships on my main and wait out a hostile force. =(
==========
I fly Caldari, does that mean I win Kali? |
Callistus
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.24 16:47:00 -
[115]
Just tested scanning for cloaked ships on the latest Kali build and it still doesn't happen. You get no result for cloaked ships, same as on TQ at the moment. With kali only a few days away maybe this feature hasn't made it in.
--------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainfrane] |
Altemi Calabre
|
Posted - 2006.11.24 17:25:00 -
[116]
It is my experience that cloak powers in MMO's with no meaningful counter are out and out bad.
I have no issue with a cloaked ship having some stealth advantages. But in the current scheme of things, their advantages are in some ways unassailable.
I've watched people eager to engage a cloaked ship in their system be totally unable to do anything. They cannot locate it, cannot engage it, cannot chase it. The very best they accomplish is perhaps trap it in system, sitting around indefinitely, until the target logs off from boredom. Someone made the comment about the cloak chasers not having the balls to engage? What about the cloaker deliberately avoiding every engagement they cannot just guarantee win? This is the point of a stealth ship, arguably, but should someone be able to have that degree of control of consequences without any real risk?
What in the above was fun and dynamic for either party?
For those arguing that the cloak should be able to do this, there is no one other single module that allows complete determination of engagement and vulnerability the way a cloak does currently. Even the much debated WCS has a counter and it was changed because it was deemed simply too easy to make unassailable attack ships that could never be caught short of an entire fleet of warp disruption.
Cloaks need to have a counter. If that counter is scan probes, as a partial counter, that's a good beginning. If you still have to root them out with drones once in the general proximity? Not my first choice (as it is somewhat cumbersome), but it is a counter and a reasonably pervasively available one. If this is the intended counter though a 'sweep' command for drones that have them orbit a ship or target in a gradually expanding orbit would be nice. Then, everyone's happy.
Cloakers do indeed have an advantage, and a significant one, but not an unassailable one. I can scan probe my way into the local area with them and then have to play a true game of hide and seek, and a risky game at that for both parties.
THAT'S fun.
This 'i'm a leet ninja rogue assassin shadowblade who should be invulnerable..i mean, invisible... right up until i strike and PWN!' thinking is destructive to good game play, and we all know there are many who will (and have) defended the cloak as is using this as the basis of their thinking. Just as bad are the runaways who believe that one module should grant them utter immunity from the threats of an entire fleet that is going to great lengths to catch them. Neither of these two conditions should be acceptable to us as a community of players and pilots wanting reasonable terms of engagement we can work with and be creative within.
I'm very happy to see cloak changes in the works, and while i may not think the current version has it sussed out just yet, I do believe that eliminating untouchable styles of gameplay is a move in the correct direction.
~ Why is it those with the greatest responsibility to make good decisions so often seem the least capable or inclined?
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.24 17:52:00 -
[117]
There are a lot of misconceptions, and some recent changes, about how searching for cloakers works on Test. Overall, the changes are not that bad, still gives the advantage to cloakers who are active, hurts those inactive.
Basically, cloaked ships show on the scanner. Now, this change means players good with a scanner can find cloaked ships. But, if you keep moving, while they are using their scanner, their scans will continue have to rescan to see where your at now. Side idle, and your an easy target.
As for probes, there are special probes for finding cloaked ships, but they have restrictions. You have to guess the right ship class, as they search for sensor strength. So using a Radar probe, you will never find a Gallente cloaked ship with it. Also, they have different strengths and anges, so it can take time to get the right probe, to the right spot, to probe cloaked ships. But again, be active, keep moving, and it gets MUCH more difficult to find find you.
That, in affect, is the cloaking nerf. Active players, who keep on their toes, and keep moving, will still be impossible to find. It's the players who cloak, and stay stationary, either going AFK, falling asleep, whatever, will become easier to find.
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ordo Adeptus Astartes
Novus Ordos Seclorum
|
Posted - 2006.11.24 21:42:00 -
[118]
The afk cloaking part could be easily fixed by adding a simple pop-up window.
When sitting cloaked and performing no actions in game for a predetermined amount of time (30-45 minutes), a small window will pop up that confirms your decision to remain cloaked. If you don't click on the ok button, then the pop-up window will disappear after a minute and your ship will uncloak.
This will force people to actually be actively playing the game in order to remain hidden.
This idea may have flaws that I didn't envision, but at least it's more constructive than the mutual back-patting and thoughtless "/signed" notes that this thread has become.
Neesa
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |