| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
811
   |
Posted - 2011.12.29 05:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:c) Introduce at least one method for identifying or forcibly decloaking any cloaked ships. I'm keeping this intentionally vague as it will be a key balance issue, but possible methods include:
- Re-purpose Supercarrier ECM burst into anti-cloak pulse.
- Add a similar module for other ships - such as the Rorqual - to encourage it to be on-grid during mining ops.
- Starbase modules that can be manually controlled to emit an anti-cloak pulse within a given range (could require sov upgrade to use).
- New scan probes that will confirm the existence of a cloaked ship within a relatively small area, without giving away the exact location.
The idea behind all this is that it's still entirely possible to rack up the sneaky kills with clever use of your cloaking device, but a savvy player will still have various options to use before making themself vulnerable. Some of the suggestions at the end are deliberately intended to play on the risk/reward aspect of EVE - such as putting out capital ships to reduce the risk to smaller ones, while still facing risk themselves.
This part is bad. What you're doing is nerfing the **** out of wormholes (for those things that could be used in wormholes) or setting a precedent for the nerfing the **** out of wormholes by breaking cloaks and the ability to remain in a system unknown and unseen gathering vital intel. The probes... horrible idea for that very reason. The other three... any sort of cloak-breaker introduced sets the precedent for adding or expanding in the future, which could spill over where it's not needed.
Simply by not seeing the cloaked vessel in local you've eliminated the whole "AFK cloak scares me" thing. Big thread in Features and Ideas already on that concept.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
841
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 17:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:
This for the most part.
The solution is just change local to WHS style...done.
No ones going to give a crap about the status of a cloaked ship because you won't even see the damn thing in local.
This bull#### business of removing cloaked ships from local and them not seeing local is utter tripe...whomever came up with it originally needs to be drawn...quartered..tarred..feathered...and shot.... and not necessarily in that order. (And for the record...the OP isn't the first one who brought it up...this is the 10th time I've seen this crap)
TLDR - REMOVE LOCAL - ALL ELSE IS NON-RELEVANT
That would be me. Please be gentle on the quartering.
The idea was to find a middle ground regarding removing local and breaking cloaks which wouldn't affect wormholes (where there's already no issues). The idea of cloaked vessels truly disappearing would also end the "afk cloak" threads.
I'd prefer things be left alone and people grow some balls and stop whining because they're afraid of the person that's not at his computer, but in lieu of some of the horrible "break cloak" ideas that people were spewing out there (which would break wormholes by making them safer than high sec) I suggested that.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
841
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 18:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:
No im pretty sure it wasn't origionally stated by you.....this debates been around a long time.
Point is...if local becomes delayed...no ones going to know whose doing what anymore...and anything over that is just that...overkill.
Its a waste of time to discuss beyond that point....you wont see them...they wont see you unless either speaks up.
Middle ground or not...it suits me just fine...and im quite sure the bulk of the masses wouldn't have much to complain about short of sheer mass paranoia. Everyone has the same chance as everyone else...cloaking device only makes you invisible to the naked eye at that point...not deticble by scanners.
But then he cant see whose around without making visual contact either or DS.
You can't get much more simpliler than that...its a switch to be thrown..no programming needed.
Are you talking about the idea in here? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=23439&find=unread
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
846
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 06:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:Cearain wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:What is this 93% figure you keep mentioning? Where is this? What proof do you have?
.... Check the QENs About 7% percent of players decide to go live in no local worm holes. If my figure are accurate will you agree that it is a bad Idea to force this on everyone? Also your saying you would keep local in low sec and high sec? Epic Fail. 93% != 0.0 Space Population. Try again....your seriously reaching at this point. Care Bears Care Bear in High Sec. Removnig Local from 0.0 wouldn't be that bad...just makes it more challenging to watch your back. Even then...every bloody attempt to change cloaking mechancis ends up being ignored or rejected...so I'm likely wasting my time to be quiet honest. So yeah I'm done with this thread...enjoy slugging it out with the dead horse. You are completely incoherent at this point. Are you saying 93% of eve is in null sec??? 93% of players choose to play where there is a local. 7% choose to play where there is no local. You want the whole game to be the way the 7% prefer.
You seem to be under the illusion that people choose to play in empire or wormholes based on the presence or absence of local. People aren't in empire because of local or in wormholes because of the absence of local.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
846
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 06:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
The biggest difference is the no local so you have no way to tell what sort of numbers you may be up against. Going into a place with no local for pvp is just begging to get blobbed. But if wormholes had local many more people would go there for pvp.
Please. If wormholes had local PvP would be decimated. It would be impossible to plan any types of ops covertly. People would dock up at the first sign of a stranger. It would suck the life out of wormholes altogether. It would become as safe as high sec sadly.
Fortunately nothing that stupid would ever happen.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
852
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 14:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:L Salander wrote:because it counters itself by making the pilot incapable of actually doing anything. Except it doesn't prevent them from running around and choosing juicy targets, which is a fairly nice advantage to have.
Which could be why you have to train cloaking to IV and fly special ships to do it.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
852
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 14:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:It would become as safe as high sec sadly. Unless you can reliably stick an empty velator anywhere in a system over an extended period of time, and not get podded, then it's not going to be as safe as hisec. Safer than now, yes, but not as safe as hisec, that's taking it too far.
The only reason you can do that in high sec is basically because no one cares about a free noob ship floating around out there. It's not worth getting Concordokken over. In a wormhole, that's a target of opportunity... either someone that doesn't belong there or someone that you want to remove for control purposes.
Although, with those damnable cloak breaking probes, you probably could leave a velator parked somewhere as long as you had people manning the probes (would become required) and keeping the cloakie on the run if one should show up.
So yeah... those probes would effectively make wormholes nearly as safe as high sec.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
853
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 15:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:So yeah... those probes would effectively make wormholes nearly as safe as high sec. No. It'd still be more dangerous than nullsec.
Nearly as safe as high sec and more dangerous than null sec.
You seem to be coming around that null sec is already safe enough without nerfing it further by breaking cloaks. It's already quite clear that being able to scan down a cloaked vessel would make wormholes incredibly safe places to live... no one would ever have a chance to be in a hole long enough to hunt a random target, gather intel in preparation for an op, anything. Wormhole PvP would die.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
853
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 15:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It's WH > Nullsec > Lowsec > Hisec. There's no way WHs can get even close to hisec by that minor change.
As to cloaks, I'd find it hilarious if cloaks consumed some sort of fuel if just to make staying cloaked in a single system for a few days in a row actually require effort, but I'm way more interested in shooting down awful suggestions that'd completely **** over the precarious balance that determines the nullsec population.
Minor? MINOR? You really need to start paying attention or at least learning the game a little before you go blathering on about things.
Let's state it again, not that you'll actually pay attention.
If you could scan cloaked ships down with probes, for example, these would become required items in wormholes. It would become one of the first things you do when logging on, when anything is happening, etc. to have these probes out looking for cloaked vessels... much like it's common practice to keep a skynet of probes out looking for new K162s that may appear. So, what's this mean? If someone comes (or is in) your hole cloaked, you get a ping that there's a cloaked ship somewhere.
The relentless hunting begins.
You begin to attempt to scan him down continually, and if you're trying to protect your hole you never stop until he's either caught or leaves, period. You coordinate with someone else (if required) who has combats out in case he logs... you go for the quick hit and kill. It would become impossible to be in a hole with the intent of preparing for an invasion, for example... you couldn't stay in there to scan the opening for a fleet... you couldn't park off the pos and gather intel. It would become ungodly easy to lock the system down to any unwanted visitors that you would decimate wormhole PvP, completely breaking the system.
Odds are that you won't admit to understanding this... Goons troll after all. If that's you're game you're playing it well btw. But... others understand. CCP certainly does as well.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
854
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 20:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Sigh. It's a minor change, just like "remove local" or "remove cloaked ships from local" is a minor change. It's not something CCP could spend months on implementing, unless they're totally hopelessly incompetent.
I know perfectly well what the impact of that change is, and it's still not getting anywhere near hisec-safe.
I do not think you know what you think you know.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
| |
|