EVE Search - cloak nerf my style.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

cloak nerf my style.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vina Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:15:00 - [1] Edited by: Vina on 11/06/2007 02:16:03 I think a direct nerf to cloaks is required, rather than being able to scan them since it's the afk cloakers that are the problem. Give cloaks a new penalty: -100% cap recharge rate while active. Make them use cap while active: let's say 5% of ship's sig radius = cap usage. so on an average battleship, you would be using 20 cap per second whilst cloaked. that gives you about 7 minutes to be cloaked. You also can't reactivate the cloak below 25% cap charge. now u can play around with the numbers or whatever, but that's how I think it should be done... maybe make halos useful ^_^ obviously this would not apply to covert cloaks. Perhaps make the improved cloak use less cap. ----------------------------------- my opinion is my own.
PartyVaN Minmatar The Hand Trade Alliance FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:19:00 - [2] but i like to go afk in 0.0...
Mud Pandemonium Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:20:00 - [3] With a few conditions. 1) Do not change Covert-Ops cloak, ever. 2) Allow stealth bombers to use Covert-Ops cloaks. Your suggested changes for cloaking devices would render the Covert-Ops frigate useless. Try to remember some of us fly ships meant to be cloaked, just because someone AFK cloaks around you and makes you paranoid doesn't mean everyone deserves a kick in the junk. So yeah, leave Covert-Ops cloaked alone, give SBs the Cov-Ops cloak, let them do the roles they were designed for. We had our words, a common spat. So I kissed him upside the cranium with an aluminum baseball bat. My name is Mud.
Duke Grail Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:20:00 - [4] this idea is decent, as long as covert ops and recons are immune to either the cap recharge penelty or the cap usage penelty so they can sit cloaked indefinatly like they are supposed to.
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:21:00 - [5] Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 02:21:45 In my opinion covert cloaks are the only reason to nerf cloaks....so not including them in the nerf would be the same as not doing anything at all. I would suggest a cloak timer? Every 10 minutes the cloak turns off until you turn it on..Seems resonable...won't allow AFK cloakers to hide all day. But that's my opinion.
Mud Pandemonium Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:27:00 - [6] Originally by: tarin adur Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 02:21:45 In my opinion covert cloaks are the only reason to nerf cloaks....so not including them in the nerf would be the same as not doing anything at all. I would suggest a cloak timer? Every 10 minutes the cloak turns off until you turn it on..Seems resonable...won't allow AFK cloakers to hide all day. But that's my opinion. Your opinion negates the covert-ops ship role, way to go. Your opinion also makes it alot harder for an SB/Recon/Cov-Ops pilot to do their jobs. But no, you go ahead and ask for changes without first thinking of the consequences it would have for some people. Not all of us fly BS/Caps, some of us like specialized roles. We had our words, a common spat. So I kissed him upside the cranium with an aluminum baseball bat. My name is Mud.
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:37:00 - [7] Originally by: Mud Pandemonium Originally by: tarin adur Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 02:21:45 In my opinion covert cloaks are the only reason to nerf cloaks....so not including them in the nerf would be the same as not doing anything at all. I would suggest a cloak timer? Every 10 minutes the cloak turns off until you turn it on..Seems resonable...won't allow AFK cloakers to hide all day. But that's my opinion. Your opinion negates the covert-ops ship role, way to go. Your opinion also makes it alot harder for an SB/Recon/Cov-Ops pilot to do their jobs. But no, you go ahead and ask for changes without first thinking of the consequences it would have for some people. Not all of us fly BS/Caps, some of us like specialized roles. I understand that's it's job...But as it is a SB/Recon/cov-ops cannot be caught unless he screws up...Which is basicly like giving Cloakers instant invulnerability....an active Player shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion...since it just takes 1 click and your gone again.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:46:00 - [8] Originally by: tarin adur Originally by: Mud Pandemonium Originally by: tarin adur Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 02:21:45 In my opinion covert cloaks are the only reason to nerf cloaks....so not including them in the nerf would be the same as not doing anything at all. I would suggest a cloak timer? Every 10 minutes the cloak turns off until you turn it on..Seems resonable...won't allow AFK cloakers to hide all day. But that's my opinion. Your opinion negates the covert-ops ship role, way to go. Your opinion also makes it alot harder for an SB/Recon/Cov-Ops pilot to do their jobs. But no, you go ahead and ask for changes without first thinking of the consequences it would have for some people. Not all of us fly BS/Caps, some of us like specialized roles. I understand that's it's job...But as it is a SB/Recon/cov-ops cannot be caught unless he screws up...Which is basicly like giving Cloakers instant invulnerability....an active Player shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion...since it just takes 1 click and your gone again. I concur. Going AFK in space should be a death sentence, no matter what you are flying. Now, I don't know what the fix to cloaks should be, but cov ops and recons shouldn't be immune. I would suggest that this have something to do with movement/activity (i.e. you stay cloaked as long as you are moving or doing something): maybe not decloak every 10 minutes, but have some sort of warning "You are about to decloak; stay cloaked? Yes/No", meaning you can't go AFK cloaked and be immune.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:51:00 - [9] Originally by: Duke Grail this idea is decent, as long as covert ops and recons are immune to either the cap recharge penelty or the cap usage penelty so they can sit cloaked indefinatly like they are supposed to. Agreed. The only function a covert ops ship has is to sit indefinitely at some point in space keeping an eye on things. The same is true for Force Recons (though they bring a little punch to the party as well). There is nothing wrong with either of these ships sitting in a system since neither of them is going to be killing anything very quickly. The primary reason cloaks need a nerf is ratters who put a cloak on their BS and SS + cloak as soon as anyone enters local. The ships aren't designed to fit a cloak yet fitting one makes them basically invulnerable. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Mud Pandemonium Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.11 02:56:00 - [10] Edited by: Mud Pandemonium on 11/06/2007 02:56:13 Originally by: tarin adur I understand that's it's job...But as it is a SB/Recon/cov-ops cannot be caught unless he screws up...Which is basicly like giving Cloakers instant invulnerability....an active Player shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion...since it just takes 1 click and your gone again. Your post makes me think you're not paying attention at all. You do know that cloaks are broken when anything gets within 2KM of the cloaked ship? With cloaked ships soon to be scannable thanks to Rev2, all it takes is a little luck and someone willing to warp to a cloaked person, launch their drones and start to hunt. It doesn't make them invulnerable, people can smartbomb us, people can chase us, people can probe us out and destroy us. It takes a little effort on your part but we're flying ships made of tissue paper for the love of Christ. So, in your opinion the following changes should be made. Have cloaks uncloak themselves every 10 minutes, utterly useless now since if you're spying you are going to be seen once every 10 minutes. However if nobody is around to see it, say you're at an SS, you can uncloak every 10 minutes and it won't matter. That's just stupidity, in a pure, refined form. Ships that actually use cloaks shouldn't suffer because you get paranoid when someone sits in local. Man up, learn to cope, adapt.. probe people out. Don't kill ship roles just because it will benefit you. We had our words, a common spat. So I kissed him upside the cranium with an aluminum baseball bat. My name is Mud.
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:08:00 - [11] Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 03:06:48 Quote: You do know that cloaks are broken when anything gets within 2KM of the cloaked ship? Your saying that a pheasible counter to Recon/SB is to randomly fly around space and hope to bump into him? Sure you can probe them..but it's still gonna take time...an active Recon/SB pilot Shouldn't really get caught because they would be constantly moving while cloaked,and so the probe would miss them by a long distance. Smartbombs Have a 5km optimal..so your suggesting that i move around an entire grid with smartbombs in an attempt to find a cloaked ship? and i aggree with the idea of asking you to keep cloak on or not.
Mud Pandemonium Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:14:00 - [12] There has been many, many threads about ways to track down and slaughter AFK cloakers, do a little research and you might be surprised. We're not invulnerable, we're not unbalanced, half of the ships that are supposed to cloak have to use non Covert-Ops cloaking (Which isn't so-so bad per se) and there are more and more changes made everyday to make it easier for our flying paper airplanes to be destroyed. Battleships should not be able to fit cloaking devices, period. Nothing larger than a battlecruiser should be able to fit one, it doesn't exactly make a lick of sense that they should be able to. Ships designed for specialized warfare roles, SB/Cov/Recon/Command, etc should be able to fit them only. This has all been said before, this entire thread is beating a dead horse anyway. We had our words, a common spat. So I kissed him upside the cranium with an aluminum baseball bat. My name is Mud.
Mortake	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:16:00 - [13] Did anyone read the current dev blog? they said that they are not making cloaked ships scannable in revelations 2.
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:17:00 - [14] Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 03:15:56 Quote: Battleships should not be able to fit cloaking devices, period. I agree completely,neither Should battlecruisers
Zeddy Minmatar Deep Space Colony	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:47:00 - [15] Agreed. See this discussion as well: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=534933
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.06.11 03:59:00 - [16] Actually it can be handled quite easily. Forget the cap usage, that doesn't really make sense. 1) Make all ships vulnerable to being probed. 2) Give CovOps frigs a reduced signature while cloaked (thus making it very difficult to pin down unless AFK) 3) Put a 10 minute duration on all cloaks. 4) Give CovOps frigs a 100% per level to cloaked duration (maximum 60 minute activation) The problem is that one person, cloaked and afk, can lock down a system of normal operations. The fact that any ship can be cloaked, in combination with the fact that the Curse and Pilgrim are solopwnmobiles, turns a red - in local into paranoia mode. With this system in place, a few things happen: CovOps frigs are easily capable of still performing their job. 60 minutes at max is more than enough of a duration to perform recon, while preventing people from dropping afk covops alts all over the place. Recons are still also able to easily navigate a system while cloaked. A few things to counter the complaints: 1) Covops frigs NEED to also be changed. If they are left alone, we have the same problem. AFK covops pilots sitting in enemy systems causing paranoia. 2) Cloaked ships being removed from local is just a cheap bid by pirates wanting easy ratter ganks. Get over it already, they're not removing cloakers from local. Cloaks are being nerfed, not buffed. 3) As long as recons are capable of being solopwnmobiles, they need to be treated like all other ships. Covops frigs can be changed to allow for extended cloak times because covops frigs are basically not a threat.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.11 04:38:00 - [17] Originally by: Rylet VanDorn 1) Covops frigs NEED to also be changed. If they are left alone, we have the same problem. AFK covops pilots sitting in enemy systems causing paranoia. 2) Cloaked ships being removed from local is just a cheap bid by pirates wanting easy ratter ganks. Get over it already, they're not removing cloakers from local. Cloaks are being nerfed, not buffed. 3) As long as recons are capable of being solopwnmobiles, they need to be treated like all other ships. Covops frigs can be changed to allow for extended cloak times because covops frigs are basically not a threat. 1) What's wrong with this? They can't hurt you + don't you think that surveillance satellite IRL make other countries paranoid of each other? 2) Agreed, why would cloakers get removed from local? 3) No force recon is a solo pwnmobile. I fly 2 of the 4 (Pilgrim and Rapier) and both of their damage outputs are simply laughable. An Impel could tank one long enough for help to arrive assuming an ambush in a home system, let alone any combat ship begger than a destroyer. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.06.11 04:43:00 - [18] Originally by: tarin adur Originally by: Mud Pandemonium Originally by: tarin adur Edited by: tarin adur on 11/06/2007 02:21:45 In my opinion covert cloaks are the only reason to nerf cloaks....so not including them in the nerf would be the same as not doing anything at all. I would suggest a cloak timer? Every 10 minutes the cloak turns off until you turn it on..Seems resonable...won't allow AFK cloakers to hide all day. But that's my opinion. Your opinion negates the covert-ops ship role, way to go. Your opinion also makes it alot harder for an SB/Recon/Cov-Ops pilot to do their jobs. But no, you go ahead and ask for changes without first thinking of the consequences it would have for some people. Not all of us fly BS/Caps, some of us like specialized roles. I understand that's it's job...But as it is a SB/Recon/cov-ops cannot be caught unless he screws up...Which is basicly like giving Cloakers instant invulnerability....an active Player shouldn't have a problem with my suggestion...since it just takes 1 click and your gone again. Putting a timer on it would mean that when a Covert pilot is trying to line up that perfect ambush warp-to point for his gang, he decloaks and gets owned....not cool ---------------------
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 04:47:00 - [19] Quote: 3) No force recon is a solo pwnmobile. I fly 2 of the 4 (Pilgrim and Rapier) and both of their damage outputs are simply laughable. An Impel could tank one long enough for help to arrive assuming an ambush in a home system, let alone any combat ship begger than a destroyer. The curse doesn't have cloaking capabilities but it's nos cripples a tank,which leads it to pwn anything that relies on cap to survive. the Pilgrim does aswell,but to a lesser extent I'd say your mis-using your Recon then...it's a well known fact that it lacks any sort of decent dps...so it uses it's cloaking capabilities to kill ratters.
khurik	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:04:00 - [20] Originally by: tarin adur Quote: Battleships should not be able to fit cloaking devices, period. I agree completely,neither Should battlecruisers how about something that gives BS's some of the advantages of a cloak... e.g. reduces 'effective' sig radius for locking and makes the a little harder to scan out? if you're out ratting you shouldn't be automatically screwed because someone comes into system and wants to kill you!
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:07:00 - [21] Originally by: tarin adur Quote: 3) No force recon is a solo pwnmobile. I fly 2 of the 4 (Pilgrim and Rapier) and both of their damage outputs are simply laughable. An Impel could tank one long enough for help to arrive assuming an ambush in a home system, let alone any combat ship begger than a destroyer. The curse doesn't have cloaking capabilities but it's nos cripples a tank,which leads it to pwn anything that relies on cap to survive. The Curse isn't a force recon and as such doesn't apply to cloak nerf discussions. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
tarin adur Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.06.11 05:08:00 - [22] Originally by: khurik Originally by: tarin adur Quote: Battleships should not be able to fit cloaking devices, period. I agree completely,neither Should battlecruisers how about something that gives BS's some of the advantages of a cloak... e.g. reduces 'effective' sig radius for locking and makes the a little harder to scan out? if you're out ratting you shouldn't be automatically screwed because someone comes into system and wants to kill you! Battleships are....well Battleships..they're presence should be known and they're combat ships,not Stealthy,not small and not something that should be hidden...And btw...Sig radius doesn't affect the Scanner,unless you mean't probes
Selene Le'Cotiere	Posted - 2007.06.11 11:29:00 - [23] Well, if memory serves... the Dev's have stated that cloaked ships will not be probe-able. They will show up on your ships scanner though.
Djerin Obsidian Exploration Services	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:18:00 - [24] It's funny. There seem to be several lobbies who want a cloak nerf. First ones only want afk cloaking isk-grinders getting nerfed. I'd say just dont allow battleships and battlecuisers to fit cloaks. Problem solved. There is no other use for a cloak on those kind of ships anyways. Another group wants all cloaks to get a nerf. Your reasons therefor are funny tbh. As i understood you you feel threatened because you don't know what the cloakers are in. I'd say remove user-list from local chat! Problem solved. You will notice when you use your scanner or the cloaker uncloaks on top of you. I think being able to scan for afk cloakers by using probes aint very effective anyways. Even if you get a result and warp there you wont know were exactly the cloaker is. So making cloaks scannable is pointless imho. So there are two options. Option A is not allowing ships as big as battlecruiser and bigger ones to fit any type of cloak. Option B would be that both of those unspecialized cloaks really turn off any system of the ship, including propulsion, shield- and cap recharge and of course any gang assist bonus the pilot provides to his gang. This would make them cloaks useless in warfare at least.
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.06.11 15:24:00 - [25] I think cloaks need to be kept there in some way to keep people safe, I mean what if the phone rings and I have to go afk, warp to ss and cloak. Only way to be safe in 0.0 and I think you should be able to go somewhere safe without having to dock.
Vina Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:43:00 - [26] you shouldn't be safe in 0.0 ----------------------------------- my opinion is my own.
Asestorian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:55:00 - [27] "Being safe" and "0.0" plus "not docked". Those phrases do not fit together. Or at least, the should not fit together. --- ---
Xarax Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.11 16:55:00 - [28] Edited by: Xarax on 11/06/2007 16:54:53 Originally by: Morreia I think cloaks need to be kept there in some way to keep people safe, I mean what if the phone rings and I have to go afk, warp to ss and cloak. Only way to be safe in 0.0 and I think you should be able to go somewhere safe without having to dock. Once you find a safe spot, there is another module, if fitted on the right ship, that once activated makes you practically impervious to hostile aggression. _______
Lord DarkStar Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:05:00 - [29] Its quiet funny how alot of people want to nerf 12 ships in the game just because they are paranoid of 1 guy in local. So to answer the guys who want a 10 min timer on cloak,ill tell you a story. So me and a corp mate were hunting pirates in low sec 1 day,he was in a sniper pest 150km from the gate,i came in and saw him (i was cloaked in a force recon) my corp mate was on the other side of the gate,now how would you say we get him? well because the force recon uses a covert ops cloak i am cloaked when i warp in and to travel 150km going around 250 m/s it takes along time. If i had a 10 min timer ,even with covert ops cloaks 3ish second recloak time he would have bin able to insta target and instapop me or warp away and we would lose our prey.Because this "feature" is not implemented we were able to catch this guy and pop him. I agree afk cloakers for days on end should not happen and battleships should not cloak but do not nerf the pilots who use the cloak on ships that are ment for it. As to the force recon solopwn i have to disagree with that,only the ammar force recon is anywhere close to it and any battleship setup for combat should be able to tank it without any trouble whatsoever.Now i asume you will make the argument that oo im in a ratting setup and ill get pwned.Well then if your ratting in 0.0 in a BS you should know something of how to avoid getting pwned,aka make several safe spots and warp between them or between planets moons and belts,OR have a POS in system and warp there untill the big bad scary guy goes away. Covert ops ships CANNOT fight,its simply impossible for them to do so,they can scout they can probe but thats really about all.They are so frail that the wind my might kill them let alone a missle,they are perfict the way they are.Force Recons are combat ships but they still have a horrid tank they scout they can probe just not any better then anyone else and have to nerf their setup to get a probe on it unless they have recon ships 5 and they can add a little dps and lot of EW but they are far from solopwn to anything bigger then a cruiser and anything smaller then a cruiser will just warp away by the time they get a lock. So all in all cloaks are fine,recons and cov ops are fine because they are doing their job and they are ment to sit and watch say a gate for hours on end,what is not fine is afk cloakers for days on end and battleships cloaking, so what you have to figure out is how your going to fix that problem without nerfing the roles of 12 differnt ships (yes i didnt touch on stealth bombers but ive never flown one so i dont have first hand experience).And yes you should learn to adapt before you start screaming nerf for every little thing that kills you,age old saying,adapt or die. We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:15:00 - [30] Cloaks should use fuel. Liquid ozone or heavy water. (and perhaps recons with 98% reduction and cov. ops with 100% reduction). If you want to sniff around cloaked use appropriate ship. -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
Lord DarkStar Gallente Mobile Alcohol Processing Units	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:47:00 - [31] Fuel useage is fine for anything but force recon cov ops and stealth bomber,they cannot have fuel requirements because it nerfs their ability to stay on station like they need to and for force recons to fight when needed. Reason i say that is,force recons fight they need their cargo space for ammo not for fuel when flying around systems,cov ops need their cargo space for probes as that is what that ship is most used for is finding exploration sights,stealth bomber = bombs have massive size,i believe they can carry 2 bombs in cargohold if i recall the #s right We of the Unicorn clan are the best horsemen in the land,our horses are our lives and brothers,we fight as one,we live as one,we die as one.
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.06.11 17:50:00 - [32] What, so just cos something unfourtunate happens in rl that I have to attend to I should loose my ship in EVE?
Djerin Obsidian Exploration Services	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:07:00 - [33] Well, you could hit the ctrl+q. It's not logoffski when there really is a real life reason...
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:25:00 - [34] Originally by: Djerin Well, you could hit the ctrl+q. It's not logoffski when there really is a real life reason... And then have your ship sitting in space for 15minutes for anyone to blow up?
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:28:00 - [35] Originally by: Morreia Originally by: Djerin Well, you could hit the ctrl+q. It's not logoffski when there really is a real life reason... And then have your ship sitting in space for 15minutes for anyone to blow up? If you don't have an agression timer from player combat your ship disappears after 30sec. So log off. ---------------------
Djerin Obsidian Exploration Services	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:31:00 - [36] Edited by: Djerin on 11/06/2007 18:31:11 I was thinking it's like 120 seconds, but other than that this capsuleer from Youwhat is right. Unless of course you're talking about your pvp ship. But then again i'd say your fitting s*cks if you do use a cloak...
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:32:00 - [37] To those who say the Pilgrim isn't a solopwnmobile: Seriously, who are you trying to convince? The ONLY effective combat difference between the Pilgrim and the Curse is the 40% NOS/Neut range the Curse has over the Pilgrim. This is easily countered, if not exceeded in utility, by the Pilgrim's ability to warp while cloaked. Extra NOS range isn't going to stop your target from warping away when he sees you coming. Warping in cloaked, slipping into scram range, and utterly destroying your enemy's capacitor while your drones eat away at his ship is what's going to win the day. DPS on 5 T2 medium drones isn't laughable, especially with +50% damage from the cruiser bonus. The only ships capable of easily surviving a Pilgrim or Curse are ones fit to have an extreme abundance of capacitor. This means either cap boosters or a passive tank, and one of those is being nerfed next patch.
EMTsNightmare Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:32:00 - [38] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus I concur. Going AFK in space should be a death sentence, no matter what you are flying. So people AFK at a POS should die as well right? that's in space
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:42:00 - [39] Also I'll reiterate: In order to prevent AFK cloakers sitting in enemy space shutting down normal complex/ratting operations, ALL ships need to be probable. Covops frigs included. Note: I'm not necessarily saying covops frigs should be easily found. I'm simply saying if you see a red - in system, and you actively search, you should be able to determine at least what ship the enemy is in. As a result, if you dedicate time toward finding them, then you should also be able to do so if they are AFK. Low sec and 0.0 SHOULD be dangerous. Going AFK without docking, logging off, or being under the protections of static defenses (ie POS) should be an invitation to have others blow you out of the sky.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:43:00 - [40] Originally by: Rylet VanDorn Edited by: Rylet VanDorn on 11/06/2007 18:35:22 To those who say the Pilgrim isn't a solopwnmobile: Seriously, who are you trying to convince? The ONLY effective combat difference between the Pilgrim and the Curse is the 40% NOS/Neut range the Curse has over the Pilgrim. This is easily countered, if not exceeded in utility, by the Pilgrim's ability to warp while cloaked. Extra NOS range isn't going to stop your target from warping away when he sees you coming. Warping in cloaked, slipping into scram range, and utterly destroying your enemy's capacitor while your drones eat away at his ship is what's going to win the day. DPS on 5 T2 medium drones isn't laughable, especially with +50% damage from the cruiser bonus, and even moreso when your enemy's hardeners and armor/shield reppers shut down due to having no cap left. The pilgrim conducts capacitor warfare, with dps enhanced by drones. It's basically a smaller, maneuverable, cloaked NOS domi. As such, the only ships capable of surviving a Pilgrim or Curse are ones fit to have an extreme abundance of capacitor. This means either cap boosters or a passive tank, and one of those is being nerfed next patch. What you fail to realize is that it is much more difficult to not get yourself killed in the Pilgrim since you can't damp you opponent down past your orbit range. You either need to fit damps + ECM burst and rely on chance to save you or fit TDs and only engage turret ships. (meaning you lose about 50% of your targets since so many people NPC in Ravens) Also, a Pilgrim cannot fit 5 nos/neut like a Curse can, only 3, this makes a big difference as well. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Khadur Minmatar Spontaneous Defenestration	Posted - 2007.06.11 18:47:00 - [41] Originally by: LUKEC Cloaks should use fuel. Liquid ozone or heavy water. (and perhaps recons with 98% reduction and cov. ops with 100% reduction). If you want to sniff around cloaked use appropriate ship. melikes
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.06.11 19:02:00 - [42] Originally by: Rylet VanDorn Also I'll reiterate: In order to prevent AFK cloakers sitting in enemy space shutting down normal complex/ratting operations, ALL ships need to be probable. Covops frigs included. Note: I'm not necessarily saying covops frigs should be easily found. I'm simply saying if you see a red - in system, and you actively search, you should be able to determine at least what ship the enemy is in. As a result, if you dedicate time toward finding them, then you should also be able to do so if they are AFK. Low sec and 0.0 SHOULD be dangerous. Going AFK without docking, logging off, or being under the protections of static defenses (ie POS) should be an invitation to have others blow you out of the sky. Thats what cov-ops and recons ships are meant to do though - sit in enemy territory and stop them making enough to carry on the fight at the front line. Also when even logging off won't help you but you have to go and attend to something, what do u do then?
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:37:00 - [43] I like the idea as long as ships using the covert ops skill are not affected by it at all (which would include recons, stealth bombers and obviously coverts). But probably the formula should be based on total cap and not sig size as with your suggestions capital ships still can cloak for very long seeing they have 10-15x the cap of a bs and only 2,5x the sig radius. There could also be rigs introduced that reduce the cap usage of the cloak (e.g. 20%) and better cloaks would have a better cap/time ratio as well.
l3lind Man Caldari	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:41:00 - [44] only noob use cloaks, CTRL+Q is far superior!
Original Saint	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:45:00 - [45] I dont think any ship but a Cov ops, Stealth bomber or Recon should be allowed a cloak... Removing the cloaking ability from any ship but those also fixes a the MOM warp away and cloak issue....
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2007.06.11 20:48:00 - [46] I swear most 0.0 players are worse than us CareBears about whining to get things nerfed <-----------> Factional Warfare: The LowSec wars which never happened.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.