| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sedai Hara
The Forsakened Companions
Pure.
   |
Posted - 2008.03.10 09:41:00 -
[1]
After looking on the interviews of the dev team about cloaking i suddenly realised a solution while asleep.
The problem:
That ratting battleships or general pvp ships can, without any sacrifice except a utility high-slot, become 100% safe from anything as-long as they stay online. This of-course isn't balanced in any way. Covert op ships however should be able to do this, thats what they are designed for. But capitals and the like shouldn't.
The Fix:
So, how do we change this without making it unbalanced for different ships and nerf the covert ops and black ops ships?
Well first of all lets not touch cov ops cloaks at all.
Now, lets add the following attributes to cloaks sub-cov-ops:
100% Penalty to cap-recharge while activated
a % value of total cap drained per activation cycle depending on meta level of the cloak.
THIS IS JUST A EXAMPLE! NUMBERS ISNT FIXED!!
For example lets say we get a 5% per cycle, a cycle is 1 minute.
As its % value the amount of cap you got isn't going to effect anything at all. So a t1 frig can cloak as long as a titan. Now this makes a maximum AFK cycle 20 minutes long. (5% of 100% = 1/20)
After this time, the cap is at 0% and you uncloak and you will begin recharge and after awhile you can cloak again.
This enables you to hide from enemies and if you know what you are doing you can do it for awhile.BUT NO FOR EVER AND PEOPLE CAN FIND YOU. and you got to sit by the keyboard to cloak again. You can just fit cap boosters and boost up to full cap and cloak again. But you will eventually run out of cap charges and there will be some time where you wont be cloaked. Means you can be found.
Ships like blackops and stealthbombers should get bonuses for this, say 1% drain reduction per level. meaing at lvl 5 they can cloak 23/7. And they should be the only ship-type able to do so.
I cant see any flaws in this, but i might have missed something.
Discuss :D
-----------------------------
 Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
A mega without 3 magstabs fitted is like kladdkaka without chocolate. 
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 10:38:00 -
[2]
It's a good idea for all the non recon/covert/bomber/blackops ships.
Just a little tweak, yes stopping cap recharge, but the cloak should use cap proportional to ship size, not ship's capacitor. Then higher capacitor means more cloaking.
Cloakers then have a way to have longer cloaking : a cap battery!
--
Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Sedai Hara
The Forsakened Companions
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 15:46:00 -
[3]
fair point.
However that would make cloaking all sub-battleships kinda impossible. and a battleship might be able to cloak anyway.
But if you meant it would be cap drain that varies with the ship-type, then ok, but make it affected by say sig radious or something. Would still make all ships be able to cloak the same between the classes but you can increase it in some way.
But still the basic idea applies. 0 cap recharge and a constant drain during a activation cycle.
-----------------------------
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
A mega without 3 magstabs fitted is like kladdkaka without chocolate.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 16:20:00 -
[4]
I guess they can make some kind of calculation for the cap use.
By ship size...
This means it drains much cap on a battleship and only a little on a frigate. It also means an assault ship will be cloaked longer than a T1 frigate because of larger capapcitor.
If I put a cap battery on a ship, it will last longer than another ship of most classes.
Sig radius can be a factor, but the numbers may just be wrong, or not, has to be checked. Are BS always 10x what is a frigate for the cap?
--
Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
TypoNinja
Caldari
Void Angels
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 16:42:00 -
[5]
Your missing a few of the down sides to cloaking, i thought it was really sweet at first too, then i actually fitted one to my ship and its less cool.
First theres a scan resolution penalty for fitting the cloak, my lock on time nearly doubled.
Then theres the CPU drain, since I usually run out out of CPU first when trying new ship builds even the 30 CPU of the prototype can be tricky to squeeze in there sometimes.
Lets not forget everyones favourite! The 30 second lock on delay! Which makes the cloak absolutely worthless for attempting ambushes.
And of course theres the oh so lovely SPEED penalty, turn your cloak on and watch your speed drop to under 20 m/s! Since your cloak will deactivate if you get within 2k of anything that means anyone who watches you cloak has a good chance of rushing your last known position and decloaking you, their chances go up if they know how to use their drones to 'sweep' for you.
And of course you can't cloak if somebody has a target lock on you, you can only go to warp with a covops cloak fitted, so your stuck on grid with whoever your trying to hide from and your stuck moveing at the speed of molasses uphill, and im told (never had a chance to do it my self) that anything except the covops still gives off a signature so its still possible to probe out a cloaked ship.
Plenty of downsides.
So to be clear, a cloak doesn't make you 100% safe, and there are plenty of sacrifices, not the least of which is that its not an effective combat tactic because of the lock on delay.
|
Sedai Hara
The Forsakened Companions
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:04:00 -
[6]
Step one : go to 0.0
step two: to roaming in 0.0
step three: enter a system with a ratter
step four: Ratter spots neutral in local, warps to SS as fast as possible, claoks, sits there for 4-5 hours while afk, when he comes back everyone is gone and he NEVER was under any harm during that time.
Step five ?????
step six: NO PROFIT FOR ROAMERS ENROMUS PROFIT FOR RATTER
see the problem?
lets flipp the side of it:
hostile pvper enter your space (still 0.0) he starts looking for pray put he sees he is outnumbered. No worries, grab a safespot, cloak, sit there for a day afk or so, when all is used to him, he strikes or just flies off.
Problem? oh yes. 100% saftey of someone forever realy. and thats the problem. There is no counter. there is no "side effect" that gimps you so totally for getting this kind of safety.
also: you deserve some serious spanking for fitting a cloak on a pvp ship and use to to ambush people. that is what stealthbombers and blackops are for (see their details)
It isnt designed to be a safetyharness of 0.0, which it is atm. This would solve some of it. No more 24/7 cloakers.
-----------------------------
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
A mega without 3 magstabs fitted is like kladdkaka without chocolate.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:38:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sedai Hara
It isnt designed to be a safetyharness of 0.0, which it is atm. This would solve some of it. No more 24/7 cloakers.
I agree. The issue is that you can BORE your opponents out of the system with a cloak. You cloak and just go watch tv until they go away. If you cant cloak forever or if your cloaked ship can be scanned down youll have to keep warping between safe spots while they try to scan you down. Then both play the bore game on equal terms. This needs a fix and tbh logging off in mid space also needs a fix.
--------------------------------------
[Video]Skirmish Warfare |
Waxau
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:47:00 -
[8]
Simple way around it.
Proto and Improved cloaks are probe-able with *probe X*, UNLESS fitted on black ops/stealth bomber.
|
Ephemeron
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:24:00 -
[9]
Cloaking helps those isk farmer Ravens, but without it, they can still stay near-immune:
old school farmers log out as soon as anything appears in local. A minute later they log in and if they still see something in local, they log out 10 seconds later. This prevents their ship from returning to starting position. They become totally safe.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 20:58:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Cloaking helps those isk farmer Ravens, but without it, they can still stay near-immune:
old school farmers log out as soon as anything appears in local. A minute later they log in and if they still see something in local, they log out 10 seconds later. This prevents their ship from returning to starting position. They become totally safe.
Thats why (as i said earlier) you need to combine the cloak nerf with a log off nerf. There needs to be a penalty of some sort for logging off in mid space and not in a station.
--------------------------------------
[Video]Skirmish Warfare |
Ephemeron
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:50:00 -
[11]
I think we could avoid NPCer cloaking and log off issue if we just unnerfed belt NPCs.
Long time ago we had some nice powerful NPCs and the ones in 0.0 could scramble people pretty often. Now the NPCs are total cakewalks with near zero risk.
I never understood why CCP made that move. If someone fights in PvP, they commit. If someone fights NPCs, they should also commit. Take some risk, just some
|
RogueWing
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:45:00 -
[12]
I would rather see a T2 destroyer class ship that specializes in scanning down cloaked ships.
If goons are giving you "respect" on CAOD, you pretty much know what you just did was a pile of ****. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: RogueWing
I would rather see a T2 destroyer class ship that specializes in scanning down cloaked ships.
That would work too, but still they start logging off instead. Id say star off-lining stuff if you logoff in space. Combine that with either scannable cloaks or your idea and youre set. Something needs to be done because ratting in 0.0 is friggin safer then doing missions in high sec.
--------------------------------------
[Video]Skirmish Warfare |
Athen Kharn
DEATHFUNK
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:33:00 -
[14]
Just another point - Have you considered Stealth bombers? These little babies don't use the cov ops cloak, but actually make legitimate use of the standard cloak. |
Chruker
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:00:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Sedai Hara
... without any sacrifice except a utility high-slot ...
Try looking at your scan resolution the next time you fit a cloak
----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online -----
Top wishes:
- No daily downtime
- Faster training on sisi
- Speedup IGB table rendering |
Phaedruss
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:26:00 -
[16]
For those that want the cloaking issue fixed because of farmers, be careful we don't shoot ourselves in the foot with this one. Cloaking isk farmers are far easier to find and kill than the ones that simply log in a belt as soon as someone enters. Any cloaking fix should be done at the same time as the issues with logging in space.
|
Darth Pheonix
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I think we could avoid NPCer cloaking and log off issue if we just unnerfed belt NPCs.
Long time ago we had some nice powerful NPCs and the ones in 0.0 could scramble people pretty often. Now the NPCs are total cakewalks with near zero risk.
I never understood why CCP made that move. If someone fights in PvP, they commit. If someone fights NPCs, they should also commit. Take some risk, just some
This man gives a reasonable solution.
There are more issues to cloaking than just the ratters in 0.0 that have already been discussed in other threads (like 100 million other threads  ). BUt this is a valid fix. If the rats were made more difficult, such as there were more warp scramblers and they caused an aggression timer, you'd see a lot less ratters escaping your ganks. Let's see this as an example:
Ratter in belt is fighting a new spawn and your gank squad jumps in to system. The ratter will try to warp away, but can't because he is being warp scramed (as an additional measure, this could be unaffected by the amount of stabs the ship has fitted). The ratter also can't log in the belt because he is aggressed. You get your forced pvp and the ratter loses his isk machine.
This seems like a better solution, if cloaking ratters are the issue. There is no need to nerf everything else because you have a problem with a single design flaw (*cough* tank nerf *cough*). Over-nerfing is what causes games like these to eventually lose players and die.
|
Jakata Boomba
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:21:00 -
[18]
Unerfing belt NPC's would mean a much higher danger to ratters.
Ratting is only worth it doing solo, if you force people to rat in gangs, then we need higher rewards.
Then the roaming gangs will still moan because they won't get any kills except if they engage with a fleet.
|
Darth Pheonix
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:29:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jakata Boomba
Unerfing belt NPC's would mean a much higher danger to ratters.
Ratting is only worth it doing solo, if you force people to rat in gangs, then we need higher rewards.
Then the roaming gangs will still moan because they won't get any kills except if they engage with a fleet.
Another good point. You can't change cloaking/ratting without seriously shafting a significant portion of your players. A very delicate issue. I'm just waiting to see what the devs do, and I'll decide whether or not this game is even worth playing anymore afterwards
|
Zeph Solaris
Heretic Army
DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:42:00 -
[20]
Interesting idea, but I dont care much for it. As if super-gimping sensor resolution and speed wasn't enough... If you see a non-stealth ship cloak, you can decloak it by getting reasonably close to its location. The fact a cloaked ship can barely move is enough to properly balance it.
|
Creh Ester
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 18:48:00 -
[21]
I read this thread some day ago and didn't get it. But did think of a good reason to stay quiet on the subject. Been thinking a bit more since and I still don't get it.
Originally by: Sedai Hara
Edited by: Sedai Hara on 10/03/2008 09:53:27
The problem:
That ratting battleships or general pvp ships can, without any sacrifice except a utility high-slot, become 100% safe from anything as-long as they stay online. This of-course isn't balanced in any way. Covert op ships however should be able to do this, thats what they are designed for. But capitals and the like shouldn't.
Discuss :D
Even if that was true, which it isn't, where's the "problem"?
Why isn't it "balanced"?
It's a bit weird to look for "balance" in a specific, certain game situation because in all of EVE there is none of that! Never!
Like an industrial trying to pass a gate, webbed and scrambled, is that "balanced"?
EVE gameplay is full of mods that dramatically break any type of "balance" in conflict situations. That's how you win and lose in EVE. Personally I'd like to get rid of all of them, but even I understand that that's far too radical to ever happen.
I do fail to see that there is a special case in cloakers though.
Only special about them I can see is that they make your, personal player gambit harder than you'd like. Which is why it's easy to dismiss this as another "change the game for me so I win" -thread.
Cloakers are for hiding. Why should we be able to do that at all? Why should we be able to stop someone from moving (web)? Why should we be able to damp someones sensors? Why should we be able to neutralize or steal someones cap? Why should we be able to disrupt someones weapons? Why should we be able to make a small agile tackler invulnurable to the victim by remotely repairing his armor, boosting his shield, replenishing his cap? Why should we be able to stop someone from warping, heck - why should we be able to warp at all?
These things are in the game. I don't see that there is any "balance" in any of these features in a smaller context, like this.
"Covert op ships however should be able to do this"
Really? Why? Yes they're designed for it but why CO at all?
"But capitals and the like shouldn't"
Why not? It's certainly not like they have anything at all like the cloaked abilities of a CO, but if we have hiding in this game, why not?
If you don't understand what I'm getting at, try this: Where is the general "problem" you want to solve? As in terms of what of gameplay today and what of your gameplay after your change. Why do you feel the one is in general terms better than the other? What does it achieve?
(apart from making your gambit easier).
As for what your proposal will result in. It's pretty far reaching. It will make cloakers useless for non specialist ships. There's a lot of changes like that in the past. Lot's of things completely useless. Even entire ships.
|
Law Enforcer
Deadly Addiction
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 20:02:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Law Enforcer on 11/03/2008 20:02:26
right so how exactly does your idea fix anything? what prevents the guy from warping to a SS, cloaking and then logging off for a couple hours?
instead of breaking something that works fine how about we just introduce probes that can scan down cloaked ships?
|
Sedai Hara
The Forsakened Companions
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 20:14:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Law Enforcer
Edited by: Law Enforcer on 11/03/2008 20:02:26
right so how exactly does your idea fix anything? what prevents the guy from warping to a SS, cloaking and then logging off for a couple hours?
instead of breaking something that works fine how about we just introduce probes that can scan down cloaked ships?
WTS clue to what stands in the thread
How is this working? Everyting in eve should have a counter: cloaking, no counter exept bumping which requires you accualy SAW where he cloaked.
Yeah, i can see the "probeing" out a ship may work, but to have a dedicated ship for it? No, then make probes designed for that. But what i see as the "problem" isnt the fact they can warp off and logg out. The fact a enemy can sit, afk in your system, 100% totally safe in a ship with a simple module, that gives you the smallest penalty(lock-time reduction, meet sensorbooster with scan-script, also NPCs dont tend to "warp off" do they?) on risking NOTHING, same for hunter and prey. To have a module that grants you 100% safety (yes being in a mid safe cloaked is the same as 100% safe) is just borked.
How is this balanced? come with a good argument that it is, and i can take that. I havent seen anything thats good yet, the "you will kill a whole player type" isnt viable. ADAPT i say. If you are decicated get a POS in teh system, get a VERY deep safe, whatch local. ITS 0.0! it shouldnt be 100% safe to just sit in. Atleast if you aint in a dedicated ship.
Making them scanable (this shouldnt be easy to do) and add a maxiumum-time for how long you can be cloaked should fix this. Just be sure cov-ops cant be scanned or have a time limit and dedicated cloakers get a bonus for the time and makes htem able to stay cloaked forever.
-----------------------------
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
A mega without 3 magstabs fitted is like kladdkaka without chocolate.
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 21:33:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Vadimik on 11/03/2008 21:36:24
There is no cloaking issue.
There is a local issue.
But for local cloaking in non-recon ship at a SS would be no different from logging off.
P.S. Yes, I somewhat simplify. But this is, imho, the crux of the problem. Cloaking in itself is fine and does exactly what it is supposed to do.
P.P.S. Oh, and, OP, cloak is the counter to probes. But for probes cloak whould do nothing outside of the same grid, and "outside of the same grid" seems to be where your issues lie.
|
Creh Ester
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 21:57:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Creh Ester on 11/03/2008 22:01:00
Originally by: Sedai Hara
How is this working? Everyting in eve should have a counter: cloaking, no counter exept bumping which requires you accualy SAW where he cloaked.
This is wrong. If there is a counter to everything there is no counter to anything, - just equip the counter. It's an endless chain.
Like where is the counter to webbifiers? Where is the counter to scramblers? Warpcore stabs? - ROFL! If there was a counter to those things a lot of people would fit them and a lot of people would complain about not being able to engage nonconsental targets.
What if cloaking itself is already a counter? Besides, it's no attack, which means the "counter" argument is weak from the start. It's not really a counter, you want to essentially take something away.
There is no such narrow context "balance" in EVE, that you build your argument on. Neither can there be.
You're asking for defensive cloakers to be rendered useless. I can't see that that is a valid request by itself. What about a ton of other things? That can be argued to be "unbalanced" with the same line of reasoning?
No, you have to go back to the gameplay. You have to present an argument for a different gameplay. Then we'd have to form an opinion on that gameplay. Would it be "better"? And speculate on how well your changes would work to achieve that.
(For what it's worth. I do want a different type of gameplay. That makes a more hunting, for a designated target, type of PvP play, more viable and less waste of time. And completely break the gatecamp centric model. I want a random target to have much better chances to get away from a gatecamp. And a specifik, hunted target to be more vulnurable. I also want a ton of other things. And for that I am prepared to throw out a ton of modules, including all cloaking.)
But you make a poor argument. I'm not in favor of seeing only cloaking go and other things unchanged. You just want victims (ratters) to not be able to hide from you. And in the role of intruder/aggressor (CO and BO) you want to keep your ability to cloak. What should be their "counter" to you then, in the end?
Same as the counter to bubbles? counter to heavy interdictors? webbers?
What is that now again?
That would be a bigger fleet, wouldn't it? And if there is something I deeply resent and loathe about EVE late evolving is that it increasingly ONLY boils down to that: A bigger fleet! - And your enemy is helpless.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 23:32:00 -
[26]
bump for local fix, cloak fix, logoffski fix, wtf wichever fixes all this lameness with the damn ratting farmers.
--------------------------------------
[Video]Skirmish Warfare |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |