Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Tycho Straun
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 17:12:00 -
[1]
Pardon if this has come up before, but afk cloakers are a pain and not what I think CCP had in mind. (NOTE I fly a Covops/Recon a lot, so this suggestion makes my life harder)
What if there was a special probe you can drop that told you whether there was a cloaked person on grid and gave you a warp into to within 15 KM (w/ max scanning skills). You'd still have to fly around with drones out to find them, so any good (awake) cloaker would warp off once the probe was dropped.
Limiting it to the grid would allow SSed AFK cloakers to stay in system 23/7, while providing others a chance to be somewhat assured that a particular gate or station was "safe." Of course, alert cloakers will just fly off and then back, so nothing is assured....
Other options include increasing the range to 14 AU to allow finding of SSed AFK cloakers, but still allow cloakers to see the probe on their scanner to know to GTFO and increasing or decreasing the sensitivity to 10 KM or 20 KM to make flying around to uncloak someone harder or easier.
|
Abyss Wyrm
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 00:30:00 -
[2]
Better would be just make bubbles probes like interdiction bubbles, that would prevent anything inside it to cloak, and uncloak anything that was in cloak (exept cloaking after jumping via gate).
I dont think that making cloaked ship scanable would be a good idea. Cloaks was nerfed in game alot already, you cant realy make cloaked ship much more superior in combat (even for SBs and BOs). And absolutely no point to nerf "invincibility" of cloaked co-opses and other ships which prefere to stay quiet in system while under the cloak.
To say more, i would prefere to see the bubble-probe which will reduce scaning chance of anything inside it (the bubble), like as if ships (and drones) actualy in deadspace. Though effect of course shouldnt be worked in deadspae itself.
|
Katana Seiko
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 04:05:00 -
[3]
Well, I guess you'll have to give up about that... CCP didn't change anything about cloaks since cloaking has been introduced (and believe me, all the time someone asked to make them probable). So far the only answer I got was "Cloaking was invented by someone far more advanced than the four empires, by one of the old races. I don't think that any one of them is able to counteract that technology during the next thousand years." - the other times I asked a Dev remained unanswered...
--- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!" -Terry Pratchett
"[i]If you trust in yourself and believe in your dreams and follow your star you'll still get beate |
TITANONGRID
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 09:21:00 -
[4]
Simple solution - take away the ability to fit cloaks on ANY ship. Leave it on covops/recons.
|
Abyss Wyrm
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 09:35:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Abyss Wyrm on 03/04/2008 09:35:59
Originally by: TITANONGRID Simple solution - take away the ability to fit cloaks on ANY ship. Leave it on covops/recons.
There is a balanc already. T1 cloak is nothing. And even t2 cloak wont alow you to make any real advantage on battlefield if you going to fit it on anything other then SB or BO. Actualy it will make you more lame oponent.
THe cloak need boost, not a nerf...
|
Jaketh Ivanes
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 10:00:00 -
[6]
Nothing wrong with cloaks, nothing wrong with being afk cloaked. Something wrong with you knowing someone is there cloaked.
Nerf local, not cloaks.
|
Zirator
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 10:28:00 -
[7]
Best solution would be to change it in such a way that cloaks consume liquid ozone or a cloaking fuel sold by various npc groups.
Of course this should be done in such a way that this penalty doesn't apply to ships that are meant to cloak like cov ops, stealth bombers etc.
|
Abyss Wyrm
Black-Messa
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 11:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Nothing wrong with cloaks, nothing wrong with being afk cloaked. Something wrong with you knowing someone is there cloaked.
Nerf local, not cloaks.
Agree. Pilots who stay cloaked for more... lets say two minutes, should simply disapear from local, as if they left the system, or gone offline, unless they start talking in local themself. To say more, pilots shouldnt apear in local while they are yet cloaked after jump.
|
Abyss Wyrm
Black-Messa
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 11:06:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Zirator Best solution would be to change it in such a way that cloaks consume liquid ozone or a cloaking fuel sold by various npc groups.
Of course this should be done in such a way that this penalty doesn't apply to ships that are meant to cloak like cov ops, stealth bombers etc.
That will requere to boost then cloaks themself to make a balance. Though it ok for me as long as cloak fuel wont be bulky, and wont be too costly.
|
maralt
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 11:17:00 -
[10]
Who cares if they are afk and cloaked cos personally if im using a cloak ang go afk to eat or summat thats my choice and if cloaks get nerfed il just log out so it makes no no difference apart from screwing with pvpers who use cloaks and they already suffer from using them.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 11:33:00 -
[11]
One of my concerns with just making cloaked ships probeable with any decent degree of accuracy is the impact it has on using covert ops as fleet warp-in points. If you can get within 15km of the cloaked ship, you can get an interdictor right on top of the incoming fleet with minimal effort. Also, consider the current balance between recon probes and exploration probes, particularly WRT sensor strengths and resulting signal strengths.
|
|
Jonathan Calvert
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 12:07:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jonathan Calvert on 03/04/2008 12:08:22
Originally by: CCP Greyscale One of my concerns with just making cloaked ships probeable with any decent degree of accuracy is the impact it has on using covert ops as fleet warp-in points. If you can get within 15km of the cloaked ship, you can get an interdictor right on top of the incoming fleet with minimal effort. Also, consider the current balance between recon probes and exploration probes, particularly WRT sensor strengths and resulting signal strengths.
And i beleive you covered this in the audio blog, saying that cloaking would probably be changed to make it possible to find cloaked ships, except role specific ships like covops. I think it would add something to be able to put up an anti-cloaking bubble though, but only in 0.0.
|
Rosur
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 12:08:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Rosur on 03/04/2008 12:09:05 I think that non covert opps cloaks should be probable so ravens useing t1/t2 cloaks etc. (special probe maybe) Though with thoses changes make it so all cloaky class which cant warped cloak be able to fit a covert opps cloak but not able to warp cloaked still. Such as with a sin u could still be cloaked but not found by a scan (make these ships more usefull). Also introduce an item for pos(sov3/2) which can probe cloaked ships without a covert opps cloak. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 12:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jonathan Calvert Edited by: Jonathan Calvert on 03/04/2008 12:08:22
Originally by: CCP Greyscale One of my concerns with just making cloaked ships probeable with any decent degree of accuracy is the impact it has on using covert ops as fleet warp-in points. If you can get within 15km of the cloaked ship, you can get an interdictor right on top of the incoming fleet with minimal effort. Also, consider the current balance between recon probes and exploration probes, particularly WRT sensor strengths and resulting signal strengths.
And i beleive you covered this in the audio blog, saying that cloaking would probably be changed to make it possible to find cloaked ships, except role specific ships like covops. I think it would add something to be able to put up an anti-cloaking bubble though, but only in 0.0.
Yup - just pointing out that it's not as simple as "make cloaked ships probeable" because it has knock-on effects in other areas. If it was that simple we'd probably have done it already
|
|
maralt
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 13:11:00 -
[15]
Why do you care so much about afk cloakers when all most will do is log out if they have to be away for a while and your not gonna catch them anyway?.
And those that got called away cos of a 30 min ear bending by the wife (or even something realy important) are gonna be really ****ed off about losing a ship for nothing.
Bad idea all around imho it serves no purpose and will hurt only those who had a RL emergency and did not log out.
|
Sparticula
Marines Of A New Dawn ANTHRAX DEATH
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 13:33:00 -
[16]
I like the idea of having a probe (a few Au) that decloaks ships that are stationary, this would certainly stop alts sitting in systems all day being inactive.
Secondly, a short range (50-100Km) probe / module that decloaks anything in range. One operation of this could be the cloakers cap takes a hit whilst they stay within the decloak field until they eventually run out of cap and decloak - this would not completly Nerf Recons/coverts but I think other cloakers should insta decloak.
---------------------------------------------------------- Shin: A popular device for finding furniture in the dark !
$instaDeath = $Skills->Deimos[$Blasters]->Oh****YourScrambled()->ByeBye() |
Eleana Tomelac
Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 14:13:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sparticula I like the idea of having a probe (a few Au) that decloaks ships that are stationary, this would certainly stop alts sitting in systems all day being inactive.
Stationary? The alt can be moving straight and cloaked, being stationary means nothing...
Originally by: Sparticula Secondly, a short range (50-100Km) probe / module that decloaks anything in range. One operation of this could be the cloakers cap takes a hit whilst they stay within the decloak field until they eventually run out of cap and decloak - this would not completly Nerf Recons/coverts but I think other cloakers should insta decloak.
I guess such thing shouldn't work on covert ops frigates, they are non combat ships that dedicate everything to cloaking, leave them at least one advantage, or they are just good for trash.
But I think this could be fixed the other way : Remove cover, recons, bombers, black ops from local always unless you see them uncloaked in scanning range (15 AU, this is to avoid them showing on local when warping and recloaking from a gate, and it follows the idea that they are low emission ships made to be cloaked), remove the cloaked ships from local, and then, the issue is no more, people can't see the cloaked alt! They continue their activities and go shoot him when he decloaks. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Tycho Straun
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 15:38:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Tycho Straun on 03/04/2008 15:38:29 Good catch Greyscale, I forgot about warpins and inties being dropped effectively on top of targets. Also, a good point about making covops invisible to these things
What if we decrease sensitivity and linked it to sig radius. Start by subtracting the largest covops sig radius (so Covops are now invisible) and assume you can get within 30 km of a BS with great skills. Cloaking BSes would want to fit a stab, just in case an inty gets close while they are accelerating to warp off (they should have aligned while still cloaked). Code implementation should easy (ish) as youÆd just be subtracting a number for the current formula. Alternately, we could have it return no location, but merely report the existence of cloaked ship(s) on grid. RP/Tech reason: they can tell its there, but canÆt triangulate cause the tech is still to poorly understood.
Re: cloaking cause you got called away (been there done that), assuming we limit the range to on grid, you can warp to a random planet or moon at 100 and be pretty safe, as no one will be scanning planets just belts, gates and POSes
As for cloaked ships disappearing from local, not sure about that. But given the general discussion about local (social facilitator vs. intel tool), if it stays a grid range limit on the probe will protect SSed cloakers from detection.
Interesting idea about cloaks burning a fuel of some sort, (to limit their cloaking time.) Unfortunately, that construct makes a cloaker trade off cloak time for ammo, and I'm not sure we want to go there. If we make the fuel/ burn rates low enough, people will just stock up on fuel and weÆre back to 23/7 camping being easy. Burn too much and cloaking BSes become much less effective. It becomes another balancing issue for CCP to worry aboutà
Great thoughts so far, thanks everyone.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 15:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale One of my concerns with just making cloaked ships probeable with any decent degree of accuracy is the impact it has on using covert ops as fleet warp-in points. If you can get within 15km of the cloaked ship, you can get an interdictor right on top of the incoming fleet with minimal effort. Also, consider the current balance between recon probes and exploration probes, particularly WRT sensor strengths and resulting signal strengths.
Another big issue is that the probe gives its location at the END of the scan cycle, meaning that 15km is a precise distance. If the probe gave the location that the target was at when the scan started (ie, get location, give results at the end of scan time) then I can see allowing scanning. Otherwise anything but a CovertOp/Recon with a Covert Cloak is toast.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
maralt
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 15:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tycho Straun Edited by: Tycho Straun on 03/04/2008 15:38:29 Good catch Greyscale, I forgot about warpins and inties being dropped effectively on top of targets. Also, a good point about making covops invisible to these things
What if we decrease sensitivity and linked it to sig radius. Start by subtracting the largest covops sig radius (so Covops are now invisible) and assume you can get within 30 km of a BS with great skills. Cloaking BSes would want to fit a stab, just in case an inty gets close while they are accelerating to warp off (they should have aligned while still cloaked). Code implementation should easy (ish) as youÆd just be subtracting a number for the current formula. Alternately, we could have it return no location, but merely report the existence of cloaked ship(s) on grid. RP/Tech reason: they can tell its there, but canÆt triangulate cause the tech is still to poorly understood.
Re: cloaking cause you got called away (been there done that), assuming we limit the range to on grid, you can warp to a random planet or moon at 100 and be pretty safe, as no one will be scanning planets just belts, gates and POSes
As for cloaked ships disappearing from local, not sure about that. But given the general discussion about local (social facilitator vs. intel tool), if it stays a grid range limit on the probe will protect SSed cloakers from detection.
Interesting idea about cloaks burning a fuel of some sort, (to limit their cloaking time.) Unfortunately, that construct makes a cloaker trade off cloak time for ammo, and I'm not sure we want to go there. If we make the fuel/ burn rates low enough, people will just stock up on fuel and weÆre back to 23/7 camping being easy. Burn too much and cloaking BSes become much less effective. It becomes another balancing issue for CCP to worry aboutà
Great thoughts so far, thanks everyone.
What do you have against ppl who go afk while cloaked and how does it matter if they do apart from giving ppl ship kills who cannot get them from active players?.
|
|
Jonathan Calvert
Empire Mining and Trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 16:11:00 -
[21]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
If it was that simple we'd probably have done it already
Must. Resist. Sarcasm.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 16:29:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Tycho Straun What if we decrease sensitivity and linked it to sig radius. Start by subtracting the largest covops sig radius (so Covops are now invisible) and assume you can get within 30 km of a BS with great skills. Cloaking BSes would want to fit a stab, just in case an inty gets close while they are accelerating to warp off (they should have aligned while still cloaked). Code implementation should easy (ish) as youÆd just be subtracting a number for the current formula. Alternately, we could have it return no location, but merely report the existence of cloaked ship(s) on grid. RP/Tech reason: they can tell its there, but canÆt triangulate cause the tech is still to poorly understood.
How do exploration probes factor into this?
|
|
Tycho Straun
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 16:31:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Tycho Straun on 03/04/2008 16:32:21
Originally by: maralt What do you have against ppl who go afk while cloaked and how does it matter if they do apart from giving ppl ship kills who cannot get them from active players?.
I don't have anything against people who go AFK while cloaked. I do it myself on a daily basis. But I though EVE was about player vs. player and the current setup doesn't allow for cat and mouse hunting of cloaked ships.
As proof you'll see that after reading the concerns about people who need to cloak to go AFK, I modded the proposal to limit the scan's range to on grid only and suggested a very quick solution (warp to a random moon) that would pretty much guarantee they will be safe. I really don't see someone going around dropping probes at every planet and moon in an attempt to get a 30 KM hit on some random guy who was passing through the system but had to AFK to Concord his kids or de-aggro their spouse.
Also, I realized the detection formula I proposed will make any cloaked frigate invisible so... Lets mod the formula that if ship has covops cloak do not report, if its any other type of cloak set accuracy to 40 km (down to 30 w/ good skills). We're also going to have to remove sig radius from the formula, as (I assume) cloaked Titans on gates will be too easy to find...
Edit: Greyscale, I've never used them, but will talk tonight w/ Corp Mates who do.
|
maralt
The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:08:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tycho Straun
Originally by: maralt What do you have against ppl who go afk while cloaked and how does it matter if they do apart from giving ppl ship kills who cannot get them from active players?.
I don't have anything against people who go AFK while cloaked. I do it myself on a daily basis. But I though EVE was about player vs. player and the current setup doesn't allow for cat and mouse hunting of cloaked ships.
As proof you'll see that after reading the concerns about people who need to cloak to go AFK, I modded the proposal to limit the scan's range to on grid only and suggested a very quick solution (warp to a random moon) that would pretty much guarantee they will be safe. I really don't see someone going around dropping probes at every planet and moon in an attempt to get a 30 KM hit on some random guy who was passing through the system but had to AFK to Concord his kids or de-aggro their spouse.
Also, I realized the detection formula I proposed will make any cloaked frigate invisible so... Lets mod the formula that if ship has covops cloak do not report, if its any other type of cloak set accuracy to 40 km (down to 30 w/ good skills). We're also going to have to remove sig radius from the formula, as (I assume) cloaked Titans on gates will be too easy to find...
Edit: Greyscale, I've never used them, but will talk tonight w/ Corp Mates who do. Decoupling sig rad from the accuracy formula, might address the issue, or we can RP/Tech explain they can't be used to find cloaked ships (any cloak blocks all ladar / gravimetric waves)
Edit2: Actually I'm proposing a "new" probe be created. Like a snoop, but shorter range (500 km) and it only can find cloaked ships, fires from recon launcher. Though I'm not sure if programatically it would be easier (for you) to mod the existing probes or make a new copy of the snoop and tweak it for cloak spotting
So its for scouting ppl through space and helping them avoid hostile scouts parked on gates looking for ppl traveling through 0.0 or low sec without proper security?. That has nothing to do with afk cloakers and all to do with making hostile space safer to travel through and that is what empire is for sorry bud but its a no from me.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:09:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 03/04/2008 17:10:20 How about this:
Prototype Cloaks use X% amount of capacitor and have a small chance of failing every cycle, for a whole cycle. Making it impossible to cloak for that duration. And going AFK being permacloaked will be impossible unless you fit for all cap-recharge, and you need to reactivate the cloak with every interval.
This makes so you have to be a dedicated cloaker (and sacrifice something significant) to be able to cloak for longer periods. But with the interval it means you can't just go AFK, every 20 minutes or so you still need to reactivate the module.
Improved Cloak II is the same but with lower %.
Covert Ops Cloak II has none of these whatsoever (remains as-is).
Black Hand.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:15:00 -
[26]
And at this point we've gone from "make cloaked ships probeable" to "make cloaked ships probeable provided you use a special short-range probe which is special-cased in the code", and it doesn't help with AFK cloakers since they're generally in deep space That's not to say it couldn't be part of a solution, it's just that the more you think about this sort of issue the less straightforward it usually gets...
|
|
Tobias Sjodin
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:27:00 -
[27]
No. (If you were responding to me)
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Black Hand.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:30:00 -
[28]
Was replying to Tycho, but my post got stalled by the repost timer
|
|
Tobias Sjodin
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 17:51:00 -
[29]
Bad Grayscale, this is why we quote.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Black Hand.
|
Tycho Straun
|
Posted - 2008.04.03 18:01:00 -
[30]
Agreed Greyscale, its a special tool for a special case proposal. I wanted to try to come up with a way to make finding cloaked ship possible, but not probable. And I accepted the two requirements that cloaked ships would be basically unfindable if a player had to go AFK for a bit (under an hour) or if they bothered to actually SS in deep space. Let me study exploration probes a bit and try to come up with a idea for all probes.
Thanks for the discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |