EVE Search - Proposing change to afk cloaking

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Proposing change to afk cloaking

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arshes Nei Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.31 20:43:00 - [1] Im just listening in on the live devblog and a dev mentioned that they dont like people being able to leave the pc for hours while being in space and be safe and want to address that. They also mentioned they have not yet decided what to do about that exactly so i thought they might be looking for ideas so here is mine: Have cloaks be always in a slight overheat mode, meaning they take some damage(maybe only starting after some time) and risk getting destroyed. But the real deal obviously is that we could exempt certain ships from this, i.e. covops capable ships having advanced cooling systems for their cloaks preventing them from taking damage, maybe even extending that to bombers. I dont like the fuel idea some people proposed because i personally wouldnt like the whole can of logistics that opens especially for the areas where those cloaks are used most, deep 0.0 behind hostile lines.
Erikel Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2007.05.31 20:48:00 - [2] A simple timer that makes you have to press the cloak button every once in while ( without any decloaking as long as you hit the button before the timer expires), would be the easiest thing to do. You can't be scanned yet you can't stay afk for too long.
Tredegar	Posted - 2007.05.31 20:51:00 - [3] Can you say 'macro'? "I may be a craven little coward, but I'm a greedy craven little coward." Daffy Duck
KaptnSparrow Caldari TARDZ Gods of Night and Day	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:02:00 - [4] overheating sounds great, like 15 minutes with a normal ship like 25 minutes for recon like 35 minutes for covertops with the skill: advanced cloaking techniques. Helps in understanding cloaking devices and allows a time bonus of 15% for each level. Once the time is up the cloak goes in cooldown mode and turns off. --- we are open for applications convo me --- gonads are open for new members!
Hennry Fromer Gallente radiated space gerbils	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:04:00 - [5] Don't they have a anti-cloakig device in the database how about bringing that out?
Arshes Nei Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:06:00 - [6] Originally by: Erikel A simple timer that makes you have to press the cloak button every once in while ( without any decloaking as long as you hit the button before the timer expires), would be the easiest thing to do. You can't be scanned yet you can't stay afk for too long. Originally by: Tredegar Can you say 'macro'? Yeah besides its not really in line with how other stuff works in eve. The basic idea about the fuel and my heat idea are that if you misuse it or use it continously on nondedicated ships the system punishes you with your cloak "defecting" either because you have no fuel left or because the heat destroyed it. For example a cloak running on a titan could produce much more heat for the poor cloak module than the same module on a small frig, it would kinda make sense. Think of it like a cap use, you could run your cloak 5 min, wait for it to cool down a bit and run it 5 min again. Kinda making the module more situational, maybe even lessening locking delays to some degree in exchange, making cloaks a bit more offensive. Just some random ideas for the devs, keep posting them.
Erikel Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:12:00 - [7] Yeah a macro would kinda defeat it, i was just trying to keep it simple so that it wouldn't take forever to implement in the game.
Gomaz Exiles of Chaos	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:13:00 - [8] Perhaps make equipping a cloak gimp the heck out of your targeting speed or lock range. Base it on your sig radius this way say a Covert Ops frigate would not be effected much if at all, however a Battleship would be able to perform its functions only a heck of alot slower.
Arshes Nei Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Gomaz Perhaps make equipping a cloak gimp the heck out of your targeting speed or lock range. Base it on your sig radius this way say a Covert Ops frigate would not be effected much if at all, however a Battleship would be able to perform its functions only a heck of alot slower. But that doesnt help against afk cloaking, it just makes cloaks worse. However i like your idea about incorporating the sigradius of the ship into this, maybe removing the default targeting delay for cloaks and replace it by this? I.e. up to cruiser would lock faster, above cruiser slower. Would make fitting cloaks on capital ships a bit more painful. Personally i dont think cloaks are overpowered, i just think they have found use beyond their intended purpose. Instead of making them useless for combat like WCS maybe we could increase their usefulness in combat while limiting the stuff that really annoys people about them. For example making the locking delay proportional to the amount of heat that has built up(the time you where cloaked). Only a few secs of cloaking would have hardly any penalty but you cloak 10 min and its like having 3 damps on you. Obviously im taking coverts out of those changes, those are ships meant to cloak.
Gomaz Exiles of Chaos	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:39:00 - [10] Edited by: Gomaz on 31/05/2007 21:40:49 Only issue I see with heat is there are ships that are designed around a cloak so factoring in heat would be taking away from what they are built to do. The idea behind my post was not to prevent someone from being able to afk in a cloak, but to make the very act of equiping a cloak make your ship hard to use in comabt.. effective in it anyway. In other words a cloaker Battleship would be almost useless at being able to lock someone down before they chose to run or fight. Where as a force recon or Stealth Bomber thats designed to use a cloak and has a lowish sig radius would be as effective as they are now as they should be able to be.
slothe Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:43:00 - [11] i suspect the people who dont want cloaks nerfed have never come across macros.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.31 21:48:00 - [12] Originally by: Gomaz Edited by: Gomaz on 31/05/2007 21:40:49 Only issue I see with heat is there are ships that are designed around a cloak so factoring in heat would be taking away from what they are built to do. The idea behind my post was not to prevent someone from being able to afk in a cloak, but to make the very act of equiping a cloak make your ship hard to use in comabt.. effective in it anyway. Easily dealt with if you factor in some "inherent bonuses" for cov ops and the like. Besides, why would anyone would need to be cloaked continuously, without a session change, for an hour while doing anything OTHER than afk cloaking? It wouldn't hurt ak surveillance people too much, since they'd only need to warp to a SS once an hour or so and reset their cloak. The only people it would hurt are those who afk cloak for hours at a time. I don't see any need to nerf cloaking's combat effectiveness, though. I think that minus the afk issue, cloaks are about right already. --------
Ache Nas	Posted - 2007.05.31 22:17:00 - [13] And the answer is probes - Linkage
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.31 22:37:00 - [14] Someone outline the problem for me. These people are not only not at the keyboard, but cloaked, how are they a threat to anyone? The only people I see supporting a way to probe out/scan for afk cloakers are more griefing twinkies looking for an easy meal.
Moraguth Amarr Rangers	Posted - 2007.05.31 22:38:00 - [15] One of the last couple dev blogs stated that soon cloaked people will be probe-able. SOLVED (not that i agree with it, but there it is) good game
voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2007.05.31 22:57:00 - [16] Easiest fix, give finding a normal cloaked ship about half as hard as finding a player in a deadspace mission. Don't touch covert ops cloaks.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.05.31 23:51:00 - [17] There will never be a reasonable counter for cloaking (afk or otherwise), without a mutually reasonable counter to local. Both currently are more or less absolutes and in direct conflict with one another.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.31 23:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Someone outline the problem for me. These people are not only not at the keyboard, but cloaked, how are they a threat to anyone? The only people I see supporting a way to probe out/scan for afk cloakers are more griefing twinkies looking for an easy meal. Best way is to give you an example, I guess. Once, when my corp used to live down south, we lived in a single system with 3 POS towers in. It was a good system: good rats, excellent ore, loads and loads of belts (pretty much the best system within 10 jumps). Our corp, incidentally, had 100 or so members at the time. Now, we didn't shy away from PvP, and whenever a hostile came within a few jumps of us, we'd drop our cash making activities like hot rocks and surrender to the blood lust of hunting someone down. This was all very good, until a local pirate corp had a bright idea. At about 2 hours after DT, a guy would jump into our system in a typhoon. He'd promptly jump to a safe spot and cloak. He'd then stay in system (I'm assuming it was a second character, by the by) for the next 20 hours. Obviously we couldn't pop him, because he was cloaked. We also couldn't exactly go in to PvP alert for 23 hours a day- we'd be bankrupt within a week. Nor could we just go elsewhere- even if we did go to the trouble of moving our 3 POS's somewhere else, they'd just do the same trick there instead (and moving is obviously not an option if this situation were in an outpost system, instead of POS's). Every few hours, the guy would come back to the game, search the belts (still cloaked) until he found a miner or a ratter he could take, gank them in 10 seconds flat, then promptly cloak again for the next 3 or 4 hours. There's no counter to it, no way to avoid it, and no way to beat it. THAT to me is a broken game mechanic. --------
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.06.01 00:21:00 - [19] Originally by: Patch86 Best way is to give you an example, I guess... Pre-align, fit a tank, fly with an escort. Who told you to indefinitely suspend all money making activities due to one lone battleship in your system? With 100 members in your corp, no one could fly support for your most vulnerable operations? What about baiting a trap or fitting your own cloaks? Mind you, that's NOT an endorsement of our current game mechanics (cloaking is as broken as local IMO), but c'mon.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.01 00:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Blue Pixie Originally by: Patch86 Best way is to give you an example, I guess... Pre-align, fit a tank, fly with an escort. Who told you to indefinitely suspend all money making activities due to one lone battleship in your system? With 100 members in your corp, no one could fly support for your most vulnerable operations? What about baiting a trap or fitting your own cloaks? Mind you, that's NOT an endorsement of our current game mechanics (cloaking is as broken as local IMO), but c'mon. Have you ever tried marshalling 100 people to all never do anything without an escort, 100% of the time? It's just impossible (or at least it was pretty close to it), so there was always a target he could nab. And the thing is, flying with an escort doesn't actually pop him, because he has the discretion to simply not engage anyone he couldn't pop. And aligning is shockingly ineffective, from experience. The guy had sensor boosters (what ganker doesn't fly with insta lock?) and scrams, so the moment he warped in you'd be gotten. You see its not difficult for a cloaker to simply warp in cloaked, set a BM to land right on top of you, warp out and uncloak, then warp back in. With insta lock and scram, nothing short of stabs (lol) would save you. Traps was something we tried, mind. Even had a tiny bit of success with it, iirc. The one and only time we got a pop on him was by baiting him with a battle badger and mobbing him. The problem is, though, inherent to the fact that this is afk cloaking we're talking about, and not regular cloak raids (which imo is a perfectly acceptable tactic for ganking); because he's on 23 hours a day, when do you set the traps? You can't set a trap and wait for him to (maybe) spring it for 5 hours at a time, it's just not feasible. Its worth pointing out that he never once got me, because I always insisted in ratting in a PVP fitted BS. The one time he did attack me, I managed to drive him off well enough (he can't have had much room for a tank what with the cloak, sensor boosters, web, scram and such what) although didn't get the kill. --------
Jarna Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.06.01 00:37:00 - [21] Originally by: Gomaz Edited by: Gomaz on 31/05/2007 21:40:49 Only issue I see with heat is there are ships that are designed around a cloak so factoring in heat would be taking away from what they are built to do. The idea behind my post was not to prevent someone from being able to afk in a cloak, but to make the very act of equiping a cloak make your ship hard to use in comabt.. effective in it anyway. In other words a cloaker Battleship would be almost useless at being able to lock someone down before they chose to run or fight. Where as a force recon or Stealth Bomber thats designed to use a cloak and has a lowish sig radius would be as effective as they are now as they should be able to be. Im assuming you didn't read the last sentence of the post before yours. Originally by: Arshes Nei Originally by: Gomaz Perhaps make equipping a cloak gimp the heck out of your targeting speed or lock range. Base it on your sig radius this way say a Covert Ops frigate would not be effected much if at all, however a Battleship would be able to perform its functions only a heck of alot slower. But that doesnt help against afk cloaking, it just makes cloaks worse. However i like your idea about incorporating the sigradius of the ship into this, maybe removing the default targeting delay for cloaks and replace it by this? I.e. up to cruiser would lock faster, above cruiser slower. Would make fitting cloaks on capital ships a bit more painful. Personally i dont think cloaks are overpowered, i just think they have found use beyond their intended purpose. Instead of making them useless for combat like WCS maybe we could increase their usefulness in combat while limiting the stuff that really annoys people about them. For example making the locking delay proportional to the amount of heat that has built up(the time you where cloaked). Only a few secs of cloaking would have hardly any penalty but you cloak 10 min and its like having 3 damps on you. Obviously im taking coverts out of those changes, those are ships meant to cloak.
Gomaz Exiles of Chaos	Posted - 2007.06.01 00:53:00 - [22] and assuming you like to make posts that add nothing to what was discussed, however to respond to your statement. "Obviously im taking coverts out of those changes, those are ships meant to cloak." In the idea I posted the thought was what ever the pentaly was being based off of your sig radius. She was posting that a over time effect should apply. I then rephrased my thought a little and stated that with the targeting speed or lock range innate gimped the issue would solve itself.
Blue Pixie	Posted - 2007.06.01 00:57:00 - [23] Originally by: Patch86 Have you ever tried marshalling 100 people to all never do anything without an escort, 100% of the time? When they KNOW there's a hostile in the system?? If "marshalling" your corp mates to take precautions when there's a known threat in the region is an issue, then you've got bigger problems than just an afk cloaker. Originally by: Patch86 The guy had sensor boosters (what ganker doesn't fly with insta lock?) and scrams, so the moment he warped in you'd be gotten. Sensor boosters notwithstanding, there's still a delay between the time he appears on your overview and when he can get a lock on you. That's just inherent to warping. Originally by: Patch86 You see its not difficult for a cloaker to simply warp in cloaked... Last I checked, it's not merely difficult, it's IMPOSSIBLE, at least in a Typhoon. Battleships can't warp while cloaked. Only Force Recons and Cov Ops Frigates can (and you've really got problems if the latter is "ganking" anyone in your system).
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.01 01:40:00 - [24] Originally by: Blue Pixie There will never be a reasonable counter for cloaking (afk or otherwise), without a mutually reasonable counter to local. Both currently are more or less absolutes and in direct conflict with one another. You're conflating strategic and tactical uses of cloaking. Hence, I disagree with what you said. //Maya
Arshes Nei Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.01 07:39:00 - [25] Edited by: Arshes Nei on 01/06/2007 07:43:29 Originally by: Gomaz and assuming you like to make posts that add nothing to what was discussed, however to respond to your statement. "Obviously im taking coverts out of those changes, those are ships meant to cloak." In the idea I posted the thought was what ever the pentaly was being based off of your sig radius. She was posting that a over time effect should apply. I then rephrased my thought a little and stated that with the targeting speed or lock range innate gimped the issue would solve itself. If the drawback was based on sig radius alone it would be a nerf to recons, those ships are meant to be able to lock people without delay. Also your idea doesnt change anything about afk cloaking to annoy people, it just makes cloaks worse for legitimate combat reasons. Originally by: Derovius Vaden Someone outline the problem for me. These people are not only not at the keyboard, but cloaked, how are they a threat to anyone? The only people I see supporting a way to probe out/scan for afk cloakers are more griefing twinkies looking for an easy meal. The problem is that this game is centered around pvp. If you have a hostile in your system you should be able to force him into a pvp situation, unconsentual pvp is imho a very important aspect of living in lowsec or 0.0. There should be only two situations where a player is completly safe, if he is logged out or if he is docked in a station. Even pos are not safe to log out depending on how long you stay offline. This is not just about people endangering you or your corp. Its also about enforcing sovereignity. By the same logic you could make shuttles invulnurable to warp scrams and webs, i mean what harm could a shuttle passing by do to you? Aditionally i dont like how those cloaks are used for solo ratters. They live in 0.0, rat in the belts, get the best npc spawns in the game, and go safespot as soon as someone enters system. They are effectivly more secure than mission runners in empire, they have practically 0 chance of loosing their ship, that really doesnt fit that well into the whole risk and reward idea. Ofc you could camp that system the whole day so they cant operate, but they log after 15 min and check every few hours back. I have the suspicion that they just log on some alt somewhere else and rat with him aslong as their other system is camped. Edit: Also note how im not trying to nerf cloaks for combat reason, like making that 5 ravens of yours at a gate go swush for a few sec as the scout of a hostile gang jumps in. Indeed i even think such short uses of the cloak(~10sec) should only get like a 5 sec targeting penalty making them a valid tactical option. Im not trying to make cloaks worse, im trying to improve them in a way that takes them away from them the safespot god mode they currently are and brings them into actual combat use beyond just dedicated ships.
Christopher Dalran Gallente Deadly Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.01 16:13:00 - [26] Edited by: Christopher Dalran on 01/06/2007 16:14:14 Just make cloaks modify the sensor str of the ship (lower str = harder to probe) and fudge with the numbers untill cov ops/recons are nigh undetectable while a protype cloak on a BS would do almoast nothing to hide it from probe. Combine that with the fact that a Cov ops speeds around at normal speed while cloaked (even if you get scanned your nowhere near the same spot when they actually arrive) and a battleship with a prototype is basically sessile (Its going to be basically in the same spot you probed them at when you arrive so a low deviation should mean you can just fire off a SB or deploy drones and they decloak) and the problem should be close to solved. To be honest prototype cloaks should only hide ships from normal sensors and the stock scanner that is going to be added to every ship (allows them to find low grade belts, sites, ect) but should do basically nothing for probes. Cov ops cloak on the other hand should hide the ship very well from probes but like i said the high speed makes that not matter so much as long as you stay on the move. ------------------------------- C.D's Formula for success ------------------------------- Credit Card = Game Time Card Gametime Card = ISK Therefore Credit Card = ISK.
Arshes Nei Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.01 19:02:00 - [27] I like that, but stealth bombers should be excempt from this. Those ships are supposed to stay cloaked and undetectable just as much as recons imho.
Sun Crusher	Posted - 2007.06.03 20:56:00 - [28] i don't see any point in changing how cloak works right now :)

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.