Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 01:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the return of more stupid afk cloaking whine threads, I figured a thread for those of us that would like to see features that improve cloaking would be nice for a change.
* Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids.
* 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 know there's long been called for improvements for Black-Ops ships, but I'll let someone else that's more familiar with their use add good improvements for them. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
228
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 02:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1
I like everything I see in this thread.
Also Blk Ops needs the ability to use Cov Ops cloaking devices. |
Sparky11080
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:+1
I like everything I see in this thread.
Also Blk Ops needs the ability to use Cov Ops cloaking devices.
I agree with the original post also, however I don't believe BLOPS needs a covert cloak. They're purpose is used as intended...for a way to jump a large group of cloaky ships into whatever the hell is on the other side.
Their primary purpose is not the all around damage entity that can cloak and give people heart attacks...that's what bombers are for. Each cloaky gains the cloak bonus at the expense of being a perfect ship...each has it's own purpose. Bombers for damage, recons for ewar, black ops to get people there, and covops to scan poor souls down.
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. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 to the OP
I don't know how many times an ambush has been ruined due to random astroids or something else that I brush by when coming out of warp. I can account for almost everything but large collidable objects, they are a pain
No targeting recal on cloaking 5 would be amazing and it would be the only time that i finish cloaking to V
Local and Cloaky need to get divorced, there is nothing good that stems from a future together |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 05:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote: Local and Cloaky need to get divorced, there is nothing good that stems from a future together
Yes, this really is the number one issue for cloaking. Local Chat intel makes any sort of real sneaking about essentially impossible. My understanding is that Local's Intel functions and it's implications for gameplay was an oversight not a specific design decision by CCP, but somehow over the years it's become viewed as an actual feature, despite its clearly game breaking effects.
While I agree that removing cloaked ships from Local would be an obvious first step, I really think the better and fairer approach is to remove all player characters from Local regardless of ship type. Then improve DScan as the basic tool for intel and awareness. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 09:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Happy Festivus to all the cloakies, friends, and sneaky people, even the afk ones.
back on topic....
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. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 11:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Xorv wrote: * Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids.
Strangely I'd say no to this, however I would like to see asteroids bump "zone" tweaked to match the model rather than extending a random distance. Weaving through/ around objects is part and parcel of running cloaked, and takes practice. I'm all for having to be extremely careful around objects.
Quote:* All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V.
This is a nice idea, particularly as an advanced skill that would reduce the delay to zero at level 5. Pilgrim pilot reporting in
Quote:* 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)
Yes, but only as part of a re-vamp of the whole d-scan/ probing mechanic. Death to local!
If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Jenshae Chiroptera
294
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 17:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
-1 learn to fly better. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Heisenburg Certainty
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 20:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
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 |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 02:25:00 -
[10] - 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 that alliance refuses to escort its pilots it deserves to lose its PVE. I'd argue they desrve to lose everything they may have as a resource including the pilots themselves. |
|
Heisenburg Certainty
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 05:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: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 that alliance refuses to escort its pilots it deserves to lose its PVE. I'd argue they deserve to lose everything they may have as a resource including the pilots themselves.
its called a hotdrop tard and due to the cloaky in system they will always know how big your counter fleet can be while you have no iea how many they might be able to hot drop in on you, "escorting" is not effective |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 05:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Escorting can be quite effective, contrary to popular belief most bomber pilots fly solo for most of the time. There isn't always a full bomber fleet with black ops standing by waiting breathlessly to kill your ratting ship.
Having local be seperated from the bomber is also an easy solution to counter this. Then the ambusher doesn't know how many people lay in wait to kill him until he's sprung the trap, or uncloaks to check, but then he reveals himself.
I still support OP +1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2166
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 11:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve No and no, in that order.
The only one who can shut down an entire alliance's PvE is the alliance leader (and even then, he needs a lot of help from the alliance members).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3357
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 12:18:00 -
[14] - 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 How do they shut down PvE, whilst AFK? Also, what mechanic are they using to interact with you, whilst AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 13:08:00 -
[15] - 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) You call this a "minimal change", but it has a drastic effect on how much time and effort everyone has to put in just to enable some others to make some isk without losing their ship. In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 13:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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) You call this a "minimal change", but it has a drastic effect on how much time and effort everyone has to put in just to enable some others to make some isk without losing their ship. In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone.
You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him. I don't see anyone suggesting it should be perfectly safe. Unless, of course, you mean I can park any ship, anywhere in nullsec, right now and still come back to a ship 10 hours later and not a pod in a station. |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
In a game where you're already virtually blind, I don't think cloaks need any improvements really.
D-Scan does need a vast improvement. Automatic cycling instead of spamming the scan button, longer range, show the distance to the contact so you can deduce where it is, and show the corp/alliance of who is flying the ship along with a standings icon.
Local is still useful though, you want to watch it for when it spikes so I'd keep it, or make gate activation visible across the whole starsystem, maybe pulse the icon blue or something.
I don't care if there are modules or skills needed to improve dscan but it is in need of something. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote: You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him.
That would be correct. More significantly I don't subscribe to the idea of PvP and PvE being completely separated from one another like in Themepark type MMOs. Reading between the lines that's what I see Lord Zim and other hostile posters supporting: That you PvE completely free from any real chance of PvP, then with the funds you made in PvE, you go PvP. Or put another way you go to work then with the money you earned you get to go on the roller-coaster ride. That isn't a Sandbox MMO and it isn't a PvP MMO, and EVE is supposed to be both.
Zim, by all means correct me if my assumptions are wrong about you and explain yourself, but my only other theories for you are that you're trolling or trying to protect income from PvP-phobic renters or something. You comments about High Sec lvl 4s or Incursions are irrelevant as I imagine almost everyone here asking for Local Intel removal would also favor addressing the completely out of balance Risk vs Reward that currently exists in High Sec. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Zim, by all means correct me if my assumptions are wrong about you and explain yourself, but my only other theories for you are that you're trolling or trying to protect income from PvP-phobic renters or something. You comments about High Sec lvl 4s or Incursions are irrelevant as I imagine almost everyone here asking for Local Intel removal would also favor addressing the completely out of balance Risk vs Reward that currently exists in High Sec. I don't see why you think I'm trolling, since I'm not saying something which should come as a great surprise to anyone: add risk without adding reward, and people will leave. I also don't see why I should be protecting income from some "pvp-phobic renter", since we ... (dramatic drumroll) ... have none. I'm all for there being risk in nullsec (hint: there is. Ask anyone who's lost a station the past few months if there's risk in nullsec), but I'm not for there being so much risk as the "remove local", "delay local" or "remove cloaked ships from local" people wants there to be without a subsequent boost in profitability to match.
I've been vocal before about having incursions and to a certain extent L4s nerfed slightly to encourage people to move out to nullsec, because I want nullsec to be more populous than it is right now, if only because there'll be even more tears when we do go to burn it to the ground. But if you've been in any of the "nerf hisec incursions" threads, all you'll get is "wah wah wah them nullseccers just want to ruin the game so they can run their bots in peace" or the like. Good luck getting anything done in such a thread.
But please, tell me why you think I'm trolling when I'm being vocal against a change which'll drastically change the risk/reward ratio, to the point where hisec would be a much better place to go to actually earn ISK, and to actually make a system safe you'd have a lot of people expending a lot of time just staring at a gate or wormhole or sitting and waiting for something to happen, while someone else earns ISK. And whenever I've been supportive of any change which would make those changes more balanced (i.e. some give and take on both sides), it's shut down because of someone's precious wormholes would get a minor change. |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Zim I didn't say you were trolling, only that it was a possibility, sorry you've got Goon underneath your name, makes one suspect ;). If you agree that PvE should not be free from non-consensual PvP then you might not be that far removed from the positions of many pro remove local people, at least in terms of intent. Nerf AFK cloaking vs Remove Local Intel is NOT a High Sec vs Null Sec debate... Many if not all of us that want to see Local go likely also support changes to High Sec to either make it much more dangerous or much less profitable.
As to risk of non-consensual PvP in Null Sec there is little in terms of the individual who is part of a large Sov holding alliance. You pay attention to Local and intel channels, then dock, hide in a POS, safespot and cloak, or log out if someone unknown enters your system. Returning to your PvE when they're gone. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 23:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Of course I'm not saying PVE should be excempt from non-consensual PVP, I'm not ********. Nullsec is dangerous, and it should remain dangerous (even though some ******** **** will claim it's all rainbows and fairies up in nullsec). What I am against is the ******** idea that if you remove local, nullsec will become some sort of PVP heaven overnight, with no detrimental side-effect on the population that actually lives there.
If you actually want to remove local, or remove certain ships from local, then you'd better be prepared to either up the rewards heftily or watch nullsec depopulate. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if null'd depopulate a bit still even if rewards were upped heftily, because some carebears are wholly risk-adverse, but at least there'd be a chance others might be tempted. Ingvar can mutter and grumble as much as he'd like about how the people who would end up leaving "weren't supposed to be there anyways", but I'm going to maintain, and keep maintaining, that those people need to be there, if only just to be a target for roaming gangs, a gigantic source of tears when someone burns their entire space to the ground, and finally (and just as importantly) to make space actually appear not quite empty.
And when it comes to what you just said, "pay attention to local and intel channels", this is paramount. Nullsec is where players make the rules, and make up how secure the space is. The security out there is just as good as players make it, and you know as well as everyone that a few minutes' (or even seconds) inattentiveness at the wrong time can (and will) end up in a lossmail. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Zim, you'll gain no argument from me that EVE needs serious attention from CCP in regards to Risk vs Reward Balance. However, in regard to risk adverse players leaving Null for High Sec, for PvE purposes that's already happened. High Sec mission alts have been popular for years, and Incursions has thrown that balance completely out the window.
When it comes to Local Chat Intel removal your sole and oft repeated objections is that Null will lose PvE types to High Sec. Irrespective of that already being the case the answer is simple. Logically your objection should melt away if Local Chat changes come hand in hand with High Sec changes.
* Remove Local Chat Intel and improve DScan. * Reverse the War Dec Nerfs. * Increase NPC corp Tax. * Remove Incursions from High Sec.
What's your objection now to Local Chat Intel removal Zim? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
360
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Never, ever, talk about removing incursions from hisec. They serve a fairly important function in teaching hisec people how to actually work in PVP-style gangs, without necessarily losing a ship. Tone down the rewards, sure, but don't ever talk about removing them. And I wish I could turn off the incursion chat channel popping up, because oh my god the SMSish bullshit that goes on in there is mindboggingly awful.
As to even toning down the rewards, there'll be a fucktonne of bitching about it if CCP does it, but I'd assume it'd be for the betterment of the game as a whole if it was. However, I do not have numbers to back that up, but I'd be highly for a migration of rewards to nullsec instead of hisec. Obviously.
I see no help in increasing NPC corp tax, my alts are in one corp to facilitate purchasing things all over the common markets when I see an opportunity for market ****. Yay corp wallets.
What nerfs would be reversed from the war decs?
How would dscan help in giving people a minute chance of getting out before they're pointed?
As to losing people to hisec, yes, we've lost a ton of people to hisec already based on anoms being nerfed, does it have to be proven yet again when risk is increased without reward being upped? |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 02:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
War Decs should go back to the pre Privateer War Dec nerf. Ultimately player organizations should be free to wage war on any other player organization without any restraint on numbers of wars or arbitrary fees. The only real costs should be costs from losses in waging the war.
In an ideal world I'd like to see Empire based players funneled into faction vs faction warfare. Sov. Null Sec but with player alliances replaced with NPC Factions. A little less Sandbox, but much more casual friendly. However, that would require a lot of work on CCPs part, so opening up the Wardecs and letting the players/sandbox sort it out is the next best thing.
Wardecs as they once were combined with significant increased taxation on non newbies in NPC corps will address your concern of players fleeing Nullsec to Empire to do their PvE.
As to Incursions, you may see some good in them, but to me the way they are implemented currently is a fetid taint on this game. PvE Raids insulated from PvP that **** on risk reward balance, lore, sandbox, roleplayers, and PvPers alike. Did all the the pre-Incursion EVE PvP gangs require PvE raid training beforehand? Of course not!
Changes to DScan is really where the sensible discussion should go regarding the removal of Local Chat Intel.. How should Intel work after Local chat is fixed? It really deserves it's own thread though. However, if you're of the opinion that players doing PvE making significant ISK should be immune to attack shy of seriously bad mistakes/stupidity then we will never agree. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
101
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 02:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
With people necroing AFK cloaker whine threads hell bent on making cloaking even worse in EVE than it already is, I figured it was time to resurrect this thread to discuss and share ideas that improve cloaking and sneaky gameplay in general. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
336
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 02:44:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone. Except now a cloaked person that your corporation is at war with can enter local, cloak and warp to you while you are running missions without you having a chance to notice them in local. So not only is running missions in highsec better but running missions in highsec in an NPC corp or in a 1 man shell corp is better.
This change would require my corporation to disband and form a new corporation with a different name since checking local wouldn't even help you anymore. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
103
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
The fear people like Zim have with removing Local Chat Intel, is that will result in a further exodus to High Sec from Null.. I say further, because it's largely already happened... That boat has already sailed.
The solution isn't making Null safer to draw people back it's making High Sec much more dangerous and/or much less profitable. High Sec Incursions in particular need a colossal nerf, or better yet much needed player conflict added into the mix.
If there is to be PvE in areas that are effectively PvP free, the differential in reward with PvE in areas where PvP is a real possibility needs to be of a magnitude in the range of 500%+ not 40-50% or less.
Of course you also have Nullsec people with totally foolish notions that numbers should trump everything. Read what this guy says from one the AFK cloak whine threads.
Zawisza Black wrote: Waaahh, you're whining about an entire alliance coordinating effectively with intel, fleets, and smart playing. Join a big blob alliance and take over that sov if you want to destroy the economy so badly. To have it your way one person can safely diminish the efforts of an entire alliance - where's the logic in that?
Note that when he says "safely diminish the efforts of an entire alliance" he's referring to a single cloaker in a single star system not doing anything. That's totally ridiculous, how do alliances of people like that even manage to hold onto sov. space? |
CaleAdaire
0ne Percent. Transmission Lost
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:44:00 -
[29] - Quote
YOU SIR!!!!
HAVE HAD A GREAT F*****G IDEA!!! |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
Xorv wrote:With the return of more stupid afk cloaking whine threads, I figured a thread for those of us that would like to see features that improve cloaking would be nice for a change. * Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids. * 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 know there's long been called for improvements for Black-Ops ships, but I'll let someone else that's more familiar with their use add good improvements for them.
There needs to be a way to detect cloaked ships besides the hilariously primitive method of bumping. I'm not talking about anything extreme here, but maybe something like a depth charge module that fits in a high slot. It would work like a smartbomb, and decloak anything in 10km.
This way, if you KNOW there is someone cloaked nearby, you can gank him, because he failed at his job of being stealthy. |
|
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] |