Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
105
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Ares, there was another thread some time ago that a few of us discussed possible balanced forms of cloak detection. The general consensus of those that weren't just anti cloaking was that Local Intel had to go first and the detection method must be ineffective at gate camps. If it's something that genuinely leads to more cat and mouse gameplay I think it would be a good addition to the game.
Think the thread was this one by Gerrick https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=59432 |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
226
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 12:17:00 -
[32] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Happy Festivus to all the cloakies, friends, and sneaky people, even the afk ones.
Cloak = awesome, and that's all there is to it. Not least of all as a superb psychological-warfare tool, if all the nulltard crybear "NERFCLAOK!!111!!oneoene!!" screaming around here is anything to go by
Now then, as a recently-minted Widow pilot:
Xorv wrote: Do most Black ops pilots think their ships need CovOps cloaks? I was under the impression the boost they needed the most was having to use less fuel or be able to carry more, and having a slightly longer jump range.
I think they should have a CovCloak, as this would not make them OP:
1) They're battleships--slow, unwieldy, massive sig-radii, and "guaranteed primary" in gang/fleet engagements. I highly doubt that every ganker in 5 systems wouldn't start hunting you if they heard there was an un-escorted BLOPs running around. De-cloaking one of these off a gate would no-doubt be much easier than say, de-cloaking a cloaky hauler, if the gate-campers are halfway-competent.
2) Strictly as battleships, their combat-ability really isn't all that great--the Tech I/Tier 1 or 2 BS' do that much better for 1/10th the cost, and full insurability. Also, BLOPs often need faction-pimpage for fitting reasons, so more to lose if when they get caught. IOW, a lot of risk. Oh, and the scan-resolution due to cloak penalty makes locking anything--in a Widow, at least, painful. This is a potentially major tactical weakness too, to balance out their strengths.
3) For their intended niche--bridging--they are hopelessly gimped ("pre-nerfed," courtesy of CCP, thanks a lot, guys), because they often can't make regional jumps/bridges that would only need to transit one gate conventionally. So, yes, they need more range. They also have hilariously inefficient fuel-use when it comes to bridging anything--there's a reason some call them "pigs"--such that any substantive BLOPs op often needs to have a cloaky hauler along just to carry the fuel you need to get where you're going and back.
Tl/DR:
Yes to CovCloaks, as it would expand their options for use, hopefully making them more popular, balanced by the fact that you're risking a lot if you take them into combat, and their combat-ability is nothing special.
Increase bridging range/fuel-efficiency, as this would expand their role in that, also making them get used more. Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7! (Mittens, you may not want to admit it, but your day in the sun is over. Next!)
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
226
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 12:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
Sparky11080 wrote:
Giving black ops a covert cloak will just remove the need for bombers all together, and you could just jump 10 BLOPS in and kill everything and disappear, with minimal risk vs reward.
No it wouldn't:
BLOPs are nowhere near mobile enough, much too expensive to lose, and way too skill-intensive to ever be seen in the kinds of numbers that SBs are, let alone eclipse them.
The skill-requirements to even get into one, the max'ed fitting skills you'll need to be able to fit one effectively, and the other support-skills you'd need to actually use one in a fight alone account for this.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7! (Mittens, you may not want to admit it, but your day in the sun is over. Next!)
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
226
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 12:35:00 -
[34] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:ok so move into a -1.0 system at 5 am with no one on in your ****** 200mil recon pilots with mediocre skills, wait till prime time, find a 1 bil faciton bs in sanc, uncloak and point with no recalibration time and get a juice 1 bil kill....wtf is wrong with ppl...afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve, especially with the switch to truesec and you cant just upgrade systems, theres a reason its every null sec alliances policy to advise against ratting with an afk cloak in system, yea you can try to have a counter fleet but the hot drop chance makes it not worth ever undocking t2 or faction bs's, im not a carebear this is mostly a pvp game but PVE should at least have a chance and be somewhat balanced.
edit* cause cloaks to slowely consume fuel would help for one, disconnect from local is an option but then id have to argue for an increase in recalibration time
If your chickenshit alliance can't/won't provide proper security for its space, then it deserves to lose it.
If your myopic PvE pilots can't/wont use the most basic tools to maintain situational awareness whilst PvE'ing in risky space in their stupid carebear bling-barges, then they deserve to lose them.
GTFO this thread, you ******* useless over-entitled crybear, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has absolutely ******* ZERO sympathy for your ilk. Especially with the God-mode intel-tool (read: Local-chat) you get for free as a matter of course!
I can has ur stuffs?
Die (in-game)!
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7! (Mittens, you may not want to admit it, but your day in the sun is over. Next!)
|
Griptus
United Coalitions ZADA ALLIANCE
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 13:53:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ya, and Heisenburg was an idiot. Uncertainty is not a property of nature, it's a consequence of limited perception and awareness. |
Ms Mirple
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 17:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
This Idea in theory is good but not well thought out for this game. If you removed local it would give any cloaked ship an unfair advantage. This would completely break any PVE in null sec. If this was a viable idea would you be Ok with gate guns and Beacons on the gates to Dispel your cloak and be able to target and scram you. That would be the only fair way to let this happen so if you did make it into said system that is awesome and have at the carebears. There tears are defiantly the sweetest. But with what you are asking for it would make 0.0 a PVP only area. That would take away from the sand box feeling. Another idea I had to make local less of a god mode would be to make Region chat the new local so you can see if there are hostiles in the region but not where, or even make it smaller to the Constellation. I am not disagreeing with your idea as I think it would make EVE more enjoyable but I think what you are asking for it to drastic to be a viable idea. |
Xiles Eilop
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 18:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
Im all for these changes, on one condition though. There needs to be a way to find cloakies in system so that people can find and hunt down them down. Oh and people will always run PVE in nullsec because its profitable if your not stupid... but you're always gonna get the stupid entitled carebear who blames his derpy losses on the system and not his own lack of awareness.
OH and this helps deal with bots, IF this does though ill be seeing yall in the dronelands (= |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 21:04:00 -
[38] - Quote
Cloaking is fine..............oh wait +1 Highjacking every thread possible in the campaign to END THE CLICK FEST and RUBBISH NAVIGATION in EvE. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
115
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 05:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ms Mirple wrote:This Idea in theory is good but not well thought out for this game. If you removed local it would give any cloaked ship an unfair advantage.
I don't know what other game's you've played, but I'm hard pressed to think of one where the ability to sneak around undetected is weaker than EVE, or where stealthed/cloaked/invisible character types are as weak as they are in EVE.
Also the idea that removing Local Intel gives an unfair advantage to cloaked ships I don't believe is really accurate. Granted it finally allows them to properly do what they're designed to,... scout, evade, ambush without their presence being announced wherever they go. However, removing Local intel isn't a boost to just cloaked ships, it's a boost to any ship/player that's trying to be sneaky, evasive, or to ambush. It's only really a nerf to the lazy and those that want to control space purely out of sheer numbers,
Some people call for the removal of Local Intel just for cloaked ships, but I agree the most balanced approach is to remove it for everyone.
|
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 06:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
More threads like this should be necro'd, cheers Xorv |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
118
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 00:51:00 -
[41] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote: [..regarding BlackOPs Battlships..] Yes to CovCloaks, as it would expand their options for use, hopefully making them more popular--and get more of them urp-sploded in the process: Oh look, Father, little Lyrra might have found us another ISK/materials-sink! How precious!--balanced by the fact that you're risking a lot if you take them into combat, and their combat-ability is nothing special.
Increase bridging range/fuel-efficiency, as this would expand their role in that, also making them get used more.
Seems quite reasonable to me. Do you think if BlackOps got a CovOps cloak they should lose their cloaked speed bonus or not?
Gerrick,
The Dark Arts are being employed by those who would see us crushed into dust. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, so embrace your necromantic powers and raise the glorious dead my friend! ....or forever have to read about "fuel for cloaks" |
Ms Mirple
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 15:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
While I am not totally against your Idea. Would you agree to constellation chat as a sort of Intel Channel then as removing local would make Intel completely broken. It wouldn't tell you what system the cloaked person is in but would let people know there are people about. Also if you want it so you don't know who is in your system would you agree that people holding sov space should be able to put up permanent defenses up. Think of it like trying ot sneak through the English Channel in WW2 it had a ton of sonar nets and other defenses in place. I think this would be the only fair compromise so it would make being a stealth ship more challenging but also more rewarding. I am back and forth on the idea of letting black ops use covert cloaks. It makes sense but at the same time would make them OP in my opinion. I would like to fix the ship from being just a fat cyno ship into something more useful as the name implies that it is supposed to work behind enemy lines but it really doesn't do this atm. I do agree that all cloaking ships should have 0 second delay on lock time let recons be the ship they are meant to be. |
shadowace00007
Beyond The Gates The Methodical Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 15:55:00 -
[43] - Quote
Xorv wrote:
* All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V.
* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)
I like these 2 but not the first. all should stay the same but when cloaked if you broadcast location everyone in fleet will see where you are on the overview so you can avoid your squad mates.
Why I say this is I used my Cloki to decloak a Cloki and killed him simply because I saw the direction he started to go. so when I got close enought we both opened fire. and I also have decloaked 2 or 3 Probe ships with that same idea with the C loki. and if they could see me they would just move out of the way or if we where both cloaked then we would pass by each other.
Born Amarrian Raised Minmatar. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
94
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 16:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
I would suggest a two pronged approach to the cloaking VS local issue, since modifying one without the other would leave it unbalanced. (Keep in mind, both are effectively broken as far as many players are concerned, but they are broken in a way that balances each other in a crude way)
Remove cloaked pilots from local. Cloak goes on, local stops listing. Cloak goes off, local shows them. In some cases, it will make their names flash in and out, which would draw attention to them for some.
Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings. Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention. (It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention) |
Ms Mirple
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 16:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
That is an interesting way to make it balanced. I just think the OP of this thread doesn't care about balance and just wants cloaking ships to be over powered. I still think constellation chat should be the new local and with your idea of D scan as a early warning then it would make cloaking ships effective with out completely breaking intel for null sec. |
Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 17:16:00 -
[46] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings. Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention. (It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention) I like this part, and think it should be in the game even if the first part is not.
It would be cool in WH's, and players could become a lot more self reliant and ignore the so called AFK Cloaking issue. (Seriously? As long as they are actually AFK who cares! I am worried about the attentive and alert cloaking pilot a whole lot more...) |
Ms Mirple
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 18:56:00 -
[47] - Quote
I don't think this how It was intended as Carebears don't need more ways to make them safer. there needs to be a stronger threat of losing your shinny toy when you are out in null or WH space. I just don't think the idea of removing local completely with not implementing a way for some form of intel to be relayed. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
94
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 19:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ms Mirple wrote:I don't think this how It was intended as Carebears don't need more ways to make them safer. there needs to be a stronger threat of losing your shinny toy when you are out in null or WH space. I just don't think the idea of removing local completely with not implementing a way for some form of intel to be relayed. Agreed, my theory needs both sides for balance. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ms Mirple wrote:While I am not totally against your Idea. Would you agree to constellation chat as a sort of Intel Channel then as removing local would make Intel completely broken. It wouldn't tell you what system the cloaked person is in but would let people know there are people about. Also if you want it so you don't know who is in your system would you agree that people holding sov space should be able to put up permanent defenses up. Think of it like trying ot sneak through the English Channel in WW2 it had a ton of sonar nets and other defenses in place. I think this would be the only fair compromise so it would make being a stealth ship more challenging but also more rewarding
I would not agree that Local Chat Intel should become Constellation Chat Intel. Local Chat should be used for chatting and nothing else, there should be no free Intel attached to it all. Local Chat as it is now is completely broken, removing it would fix EVE bringing it to line with most other games in areas of utilizing stealth and intel gathering. Posters act like if Local Intel were gone they'd have no intel tools left, it's as if they've never used DScan.
Should people holding Sov space be able to put up defenses? Yes, but they should require active participation, upkeep and defense. You'd have to give me details to say whether I would really support what you have in mind. But the English Channel is not a great example to start from, people have swam across that. Maybe you want to stick with your WW2 analogy the North Sea would be a little more balanced.
Ms Mirple wrote:That is an interesting way to make it balanced. I just think the OP of this thread doesn't care about balance and just wants cloaking ships to be over powered.
No, I'm just trying to balance the ability to use stealth up to par in EVE as it is in every other MMO with PvP that I've played. Can you name me one PvP focused MMO where the ability to use stealth is weaker than it is EVE? Can you name me one MMO with PvP that have Avatars that can go invisible or use some other from of game mechanic induced stealth that are weaker than those we have in EVE? If you're struggling here to think of one, maybe it isn't me that doesn't care about balance...
|
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 07:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:I would suggest a two pronged approach to the cloaking VS local issue, since modifying one without the other would leave it unbalanced. (Keep in mind, both are effectively broken as far as many players are concerned, but they are broken in a way that balances each other in a crude way)
Remove cloaked pilots from local. Cloak goes on, local stops listing. Cloak goes off, local shows them. In some cases, it will make their names flash in and out, which would draw attention to them for some.
Make D-Scan a toggle, so that it constantly updates about every 2 seconds or less, and give it decent range to react with. Also, if a cloaked ship gets in range of D-Scan this way, it gets reported as a cloaked item, with no other information or pilot standings. Most ratters and miners would be able to safe up based on D-Scan warnings, assuming they were paying attention. (It would make sense to have a check box to activate a "Cloak Alarm", in the event D-Scan detected a cloaked object, giving the pilot an alarm sound to catch their attention)
Like it except that I think the time between cycles should depend on the angle of the scan, shorter the angle the shorter the scan time. 360 should update about every 8-10 seconds while anything 30 and below should update everysecond. Also other means, beyond d-scan, should be made to actively gather intel on active targets. My idea is that activity on the part of the cloaker weakens his cloaking field and may allow him to be located with some cat and mouse tactics by the defenders. There should be nothing in the form of probes that locate cloaked ships in safe spots as it defeats the purpose of cloaking. |
|
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 10:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve,
!!??????
I live in low sec, and when when I'm online alone or with only a few corps mates I/we run some plexes, and you know what every one can jump you on any moment.
I thought 0.0 was to be the dangerous part of New Eden? |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 10:12:00 -
[52] - Quote
Nullbears do nothing but whine when they cannot rat in peace. Lowsec and W-space are the most dangerous places in eve unfortunately. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
228
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 02:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Lyrrashae wrote: [..regarding BlackOPs Battlships..] Yes to CovCloaks, as it would expand their options for use, hopefully making them more popular--and get more of them urp-sploded in the process: Oh look, Father, little Lyrra might have found us another ISK/materials-sink! How precious!--balanced by the fact that you're risking a lot if you take them into combat, and their combat-ability is nothing special.
Increase bridging range/fuel-efficiency, as this would expand their role in that, also making them get used more.
Seems quite reasonable to me. Do you think if BlackOps got a CovOps cloak they should lose their cloaked speed bonus or not? Gerrick, The Dark Arts are being employed by those who would see us crushed into dust. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, so embrace your necromantic powers and raise the glorious dead my friend! ....or forever have to read about "fuel for cloaks"
Yes, they should lose the speed-bonus if CovOps'ed. That's in-line with all the other CovCloaked ships: No cloaked-speed penalty, but no speed bonus either. I are kyute kitten! I are in ur mishun! Redoosin' teh lag by ninja'ing ur wrekz! (CCP: Make wrecks probable, and after 30min., tractorable.) |
TurAmarth ElRandir
Helix Pulse Rolling Thunder.
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 15:40:00 -
[54] - Quote
AFL Cloaking/Cyno Balancing
OK, the basic issue is not that cloaking as a mechanic is 'broken', it's not that having a pilot in a system who cannot be 'found' is scary;
It is the use of cloaking AND cyno together that is the core issue people have with AFK Cloaking. A pilot in a cloaked ship at a well made safespot is COMPLETELY SAFE from attack by defending pilots until he decides to uncloak. If he then uses a cyno, the ships that come in, can avoid using defendable gates or closable wormholes in order to enter and leave the system anywhere in that system... this is, of course, the EVE famous "hotdrop". When the cloaky/cyno pilot hotdrops a PvP fleet onto PvE ships or mining shps, the aggressors have an unbalanced advantage.
OK, so change the cloak & cyno mechanic so that NO SHIP IN EVE CAN FIT A CLOAK AND A CYNO AT THE SAME TIME.
This is the simplest solution... CPU needs for a cloak are extreme and require a special ship type... ok, a slight change to the Cynosaural Field Generator module and if any cloak is fitted, active or not, a cyno CANNOT ever have enough CPU to be onlined even with a full set of CPU mods in the low slots.
Cloaks and cloaking is totally unaffected in W-space.
In null, AFK Cloakers are not affected in thier intel gathering and safety while cloaked... they just can't be the focal point of an indefensable incursion by a fleet into a system anymoar.
You want to light off a cyno? Have your cloaky make a BM or sit on the desired warp in point and, in order for you to get the 'reward' of a hotdrop, your cyno ship has to 'risk' the run through the gate/hole then the run to the cloaky or BM and THEN you can light off your cyno and make with the violencing of boats... and the people in the system have a chance to organize a response.... fight back or dock up. Don't like em docking up? Fine... keep your fleet in there and you can 'risk' that to carry out your Income Denial Op instead of ONE lone AFK char... Risk = Reward, = Balance.
Who knows? Mebbe the ability of the defenders to actuallly fight back in PvP fitted ships instead of being hotdropped in PvE ships might just stir up a response and get you some PvP... only on moar balanced terms for all....
You may now rage and cry about how unfair this would be... how I want to nerf your gameplay... how I suc at life because I want to fight back inna PvP fit ship. TurAmarth ElRandir HBHI VP & Salvage Operations Director Fly Safe and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/ |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:35:00 -
[55] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:AFK Cloaking/Cyno Balancing
"AFK Cloaking Balancing" is directly tied to balancing the broken Intel system caused by Local Chat.
I partially agree with your position on Cynos, but as much as I would love a new role bonus for Recons that would suit my personal needs more, your suggestion is way over the top and breaks the whole Black Ops gang concept.
I have suggested elsewhere that Warp Scrams/Disruptors jam ships from lighting Cynos, and there are other suggestions out there, most of which are much more balanced than yours.
Anyway I agree that there should be a means of stopping the enemy from dropping massive reinforcements right on top of you beyond very quickly blowing them up. However, I also think that there should be means to bypass the crappy gate system and get fleets into enemy territory. I also think that those PvEing in Null should very much be vulnerable to PvP predation. |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:01:00 -
[56] - Quote
Xorv wrote:TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:AFK Cloaking/Cyno Balancing
"AFK Cloaking Balancing" is directly tied to balancing the broken Intel system caused by Local Chat. I partially agree with your position on Cynos, but as much as I would love a new role bonus for Recons that would suit my personal needs more, your suggestion is way over the top and breaks the whole Black Ops gang concept. I have suggested elsewhere that Warp Scrams/Disruptors jam ships from lighting Cynos, and there are other suggestions out there, most of which are much more balanced than yours. Anyway I agree that there should be a means of stopping the enemy from dropping massive reinforcements right on top of you beyond very quickly blowing them up. However, I also think that there should be means to bypass the crappy gate system and get fleets into enemy territory. I also think that those PvEing in Null should very much be vulnerable to PvP predation.
Possible solution to the cyno hotdrop issue is to limit the amount or mass of ships that can be bridged onto a single cyno.
On topic: cloaks need to be detectable but not easily, and especially not easily at gates (detectable does not necessarily mean findable, but some sort of warning is needed). Local needs to lose its current 100% perfect intel, and dscan needs improving a heck of a lot. Most importantly though, these things need to happen at the same time. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 10:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
Hotdrops could be addressed with a simple spool up timer.
Cloaking detectability could be addressed with a system that makes it so active pilots can be detected on d-scan, using there actions to potentially weaken their cloak to the point that they give themselves away. Scanning, warping, moving, and yourown sensor strength could all be contributing factors.
Agreed that cloaking modifications and removal of local intel be done at the same time. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
134
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 00:54:00 -
[58] - Quote
Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:Possible solution to the cyno hotdrop issue is to limit the amount or mass of ships that can be bridged onto a single cyno.
Personally my only issue with Hotdrops is in its effect of enhancing the power having more numbers. Cloaks should primarily be for the few to overcome the many. Being able to use a cov cyno to get behind enemy lines is a good feature. Players being able to drop big fleets and even caps right on top of of small gangs is not.
There's probably lots of ways it could be made better, I still like my idea of being able to jam the lighting of a cyno beacon with warp scrams/disruptors. In regard to cloakers and cynos, making new CovOps ships or variants of existing ships that can't fit a cyno but instead gain greater capabilities to operate as solo threats would another means of reducing the threat of hotdrops, while giving solo and small gang cloakies a much deserved boost.
As to removing Local Chat Intel, it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned even without any other changes removing it would be a very good thing. Not that I'm against a reasonable means of cloak detection, I just don't see it as something that is required to remove Local.
|
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
Xorv wrote:* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)
Make it work both ways.
If you cloak you get removed from local, and at the same time you can no longer see or use local?
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
135
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Fade Toblack wrote: Make it work both ways.
If you cloak you get removed from local, and at the same time you can no longer see or use local?
No I don't think that's the best path. Local Intel should be removed entirely for everyone regardless what kind of ship they're flying. CovOps ships shouldn't be the only ones able to avoid the very badly designed Local Chat mechanics, the whole thing just needs to be scraped.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |