| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ThatsGayOrange
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
   |
Posted - 2012.03.12 17:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
I like this Idea combined with your other one. +1
I don't see a sec restriction on this. I'm okay with this. "Nothing on gate, jump the freighter through, ...................... FFFFFFUUUUUUUUU"
Addendum: perhaps we literally combine the two ideas in your other threads, the cloak field also removes the inhabitants from local.
things in field shouldn't decloak by proximity, just like the recent cov ops changes. I think the basic idea in EvE is that coming up with a good plan is the hard part, executing it, is the easy part, provided that it isn't mutually exclusive with other people's well executed plans. Cloakies decloaking Cloakies frustrates this.
Anti-Cloak probes are also, cloaked. You won't need the domino decloak cascade when your fleet warps into their cloak bubble and drifts several K through it |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
I personally don't think local chat should be involved with cloaks on any level.
If you are cloaked, by the field I described here, or by your ship's discrete hardware, you should not show up in local, and I think you should not see it either.
It should work both ways, I think.
Now, probing should still be available, along with your D-Scan.
Obviously you should still see anything on grid with you.
This makes local an all or nothing, not just a one way mirror. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
233
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 17:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bumped for reference, I am unable to copy the URL for some reason into the new thread |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
That link thing might indicate some kind of problem here.
Bumped for reference.
Again. |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 17:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
As I said in the other post about this idea, I think a good way to balance it is to make the total amount of signature radius able to be cloaked dependent on the skill of the BO pilot. So at level 1 he can cloak like maybe a BC or two and some smaller ships, at level 5, he could cloak like 4 or 5 BS's with some smaller supporting ships. Scaling this would depend on testing of course, but that would be better than an arbitrary ship class/count limit.
Also, all the ships should get all of the negatives of being cloaked (slower, sig resolutions, target delay etc) and it goes away in the same manner as it does if they had fitted a cloak and deactivated it. This way your tornado blob takes a minute to lock anything down, your interceptors can't just pop out and tackle something, and Cap ships wouldn't fit.
I like the idea a lot and I think it should be done and tested at least. If it is failsauce on the test server then it can be abandoned, but I think it would make the BO's a great addition to small gangs and big fleets alike and the kill boards would be littered with them...which is a good thing I am sure. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Loius Woo wrote:As I said in the other post about this idea, I think a good way to balance it is to make the total amount of signature radius able to be cloaked dependent on the skill of the BO pilot. So at level 1 he can cloak like maybe a BC or two and some smaller ships, at level 5, he could cloak like 4 or 5 BS's with some smaller supporting ships. Scaling this would depend on testing of course, but that would be better than an arbitrary ship class/count limit.
Similar effect already suggested, making the cloaking effect limited in two ways:
The BLOPs pilot needed a high enough skill to cover the class of ships in question.
The ships needed to fit inside the radius.
Your idea could be useful if it is determined that only a very limited number of ships should be able to share the cloak.
Loius Woo wrote:Also, all the ships should get all of the negatives of being cloaked (slower, sig resolutions, target delay etc) and it goes away in the same manner as it does if they had fitted a cloak and deactivated it. This way your tornado blob takes a minute to lock anything down, your interceptors can't just pop out and tackle something, and Cap ships wouldn't fit.
The penalties you mentioned were already specified and in place. I know, it's a long read, but a lot of details like this got covered after the original post went up.
Cap ships: Ok, the thing to remember about these, is that cap pilots do not deliberately take risks in most cases. (Yes, everyone has heard of some fool who got hot dropped while ratting, they are not who we mean here)
If the cap ship isn't covered, the pilot often either has a cloak mounted independently, or simply logs out to avoid trouble. You will actually see more kill mails on cap ships if they have less control over their own protection, since they will be taking chances for convenience they may not have otherwise considered. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 19:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Go away, cloakbubble baddies. |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 19:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Go away, cloakbubble baddies.
Same as the other thread that you graced with your comment.
Thank you for your insightful and succinct logical rebuttal to the idea. You have brought so much to the discussion that I am speechless.
Here, take my internets. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 19:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Loius Woo wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Go away, cloakbubble baddies. Same as the other thread that you graced with your comment. Thank you for your insightful and succinct logical rebuttal to the idea. You have brought so much to the discussion that I am speechless. Here, take my internets.
You're ********, there was a gigantic thread about this a month or so ago where this point was argued REPEATEDLY and at great length. People should use the search button before they repost THE SAME **** IDEAS in multiple threads on the same day. |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 19:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Loius Woo wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Go away, cloakbubble baddies. Same as the other thread that you graced with your comment. Thank you for your insightful and succinct logical rebuttal to the idea. You have brought so much to the discussion that I am speechless. Here, take my internets. You're ********, there was a gigantic thread about this a month or so ago where this point was argued REPEATEDLY and at great length. People should use the search button before they repost THE SAME **** IDEAS in multiple threads on the same day.
Got it, you don't like it, thanks for coming. Have a nice day.
Also, this thread is like a couple of months old, it was brought back after the other post today referenced it. So...your point=invalid. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
264
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 19:31:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Loius Woo wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Go away, cloakbubble baddies. Same as the other thread that you graced with your comment. Thank you for your insightful and succinct logical rebuttal to the idea. You have brought so much to the discussion that I am speechless. Here, take my internets. You're ********, there was a gigantic thread about this a month or so ago where this point was argued REPEATEDLY and at great length. People should use the search button before they repost THE SAME **** IDEAS in multiple threads on the same day.
That would either have been this thread, or one that came after it.
(Original post was on March 1st)
With the exception of those who did not read it, most comments were positive here. |
PinkKnife
The Scope
Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 21:01:00 -
[42] - Quote
I understand the post, point, and details of the thread, the point I'm making is that this is a huge answer to a question no one is asking.
The problem lies in that BOs aren't worth the cost as it is, they have no real function outside of being glorified jump bridges.
Adding this giant new tactic and module and god knows what else doesn't FIX the ships, it simply gives them something else to do. You still won't see them in fleets, you still won't really see them utilised much, and you still won't see people training up for them.
Combining the two ideas you get this giant clusterfuck of a module that now cloaks anyship in its field in any system, and gives them complete removal of local.
Outside of the technical limitations on how one person is removed from a local channel, how does this make the Redeemer any better of a ship?
If you want to fix the ship, start with the ship. Don't add some new grandoise tactic that needs to be tested/designed/discussed/debated, ad naseum.
Covert ops cloak, ewar specific bonuses. Then you will see them used more. Look at the Bhaalgorn, That should be akin to what the Redeemer should be.
More importantly, CCP has already said something similar in terms of what is coming down the line in terms of ship balancing and class types (replacing tiers).
Also this, or the 3/1 post are NOT the first time this idea has been brought up. |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 21:11:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP has also said that NEW MODULES are coming down the pipe and asked for ideas for them.
What you suggest for the BO is good, CovOps cloak, ECM bonus for more than just the Widow, etc are all good suggestions.
With the proper balancing, the cloak field could be a fairly minor change. Remember we are not talking about a POS shield size field able to hide a drake blob.
What I suggested would, with max skills, hide a handful of BS's. That is hardly game breaking. Especially if every ship under the cloak suffers all the negative effects of a regular cloak besides the fitting issues.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by removal of local. What that said before? I don't think this was talking about the issues of local at all.
As far as I understand it, if you had a group in this cloak field then local would still show like 6-7 guys in local. How is that different from a CovOps gang moving through.
Adding a new role for a BO ship that fits in with its current role, but in a new way is hardly a large change. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 21:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
And the other one with the same idea that's also on the front page?
Whatever. Thanks to whoever necro'd a bad thread. |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 21:25:00 -
[45] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:And the other one with the same idea that's also on the front page?
Whatever. Thanks to whoever necro'd a bad thread.
Again, it wasn't necro'd. It was brought back up because someone posted a similar idea and they were pointed to this thread. Thats completely natural forum behavior. If it bothers you so bad, stop reading it. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 21:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
I was about to go into "yet another cry for covops cloak" reply mode, but this idea actually sounds interesting. As long as all ships benefiting from that bubble would have the normal T2 cloak penalties like locking speed penalty, movement speed and 25 seconds timer after decloaking before being able to target. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
264
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Stuff, some of which got italicized for response below.
The rest was too opinionated or just unrelated as to bother responding to
I understand the post, point, and details of the thread, the point I'm making is that this is a huge answer to a question no one is asking.
Almost humorous, definitely ironic, especially when you accept this board is for features and ideas.
The problem lies in that BOs aren't worth the cost as it is, they have no real function outside of being glorified jump bridges.
Well, the first step is admitting there is a problem, which begs the question: How do we correct this?
And here you were trying to point out there was no question!
Adding this giant new tactic and module and god knows what else doesn't FIX the ships, it simply gives them something else to do. You still won't see them in fleets, you still won't really see them utilised much, and you still won't see people training up for them.
This is called an opinion. You have no supporting facts, but you present this as if everyone would agree with your assumption.
I get it, you want a covert cloak on it.
Now, go ask yourself what good that would do, after you pointed out they needed value to justify people training for them, combined with the fact your cloak gives them nothing a CovOps or recon doesn't already have.
Here is some confusion, as removing from local is part of many other thread ideas, just not this one as part of the idea.
Combining the two ideas you get this giant clusterfuck of a module that now cloaks anyship in its field in any system, and gives them complete removal of local.
The comments on local were opinions on it, never a part of the idea itself, so you lumping them together as an example of fail design is reflecting more on your reading than anyone Else's ideas.
Covert ops cloak, ewar specific bonuses. Then you will see them used more. Look at the Bhaalgorn, That should be akin to what the Redeemer should be.
Then go start a thread on that, or find one and bring it back. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
264
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 22:08:00 -
[48] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:I was about to go into "yet another cry for covops cloak" reply mode, but this idea actually sounds interesting. As long as all ships benefiting from that bubble would have the normal T2 cloak penalties like locking speed penalty, movement speed and 25 seconds timer after decloaking before being able to target.
They would have all of those penalties.
My idea varies from Loius Woo mostly in details.
His version allows fewer ships, but easier travel.
Mine allows for more ships, but is nearly immobile, since each ship has it's movement treated as if it was using the cloak directly. Yes, it could move, but it would need to go the same speed as whichever ship happened to be the slowest. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |