EVE Search - CCP Please adjust cloaking

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP Please adjust cloaking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arbelia Amarsa Duchy of Amarsa	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:20:00 - [1] Cloaking is a great part of the game, but i think the way some ships are allowed to use it are uncharacteristic and lead to boredom in the game. How can a massive battleship stay cloaked for an hour right alongside a frigate cloaked? Wouldn't you think it would cost a TON of energy to keep a bigger ship cloaked? When some players take ships to enemy space they often use cloaking ships of many sizes. For frigates it makes sense but cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships it just leads to boring ops where cloakers sit bored waiting for targets and targets sit bored waiting for cloakers. People are getting tired of it, its not a fun part of the game. Solution, simply make bigger ships have to expend cap to stay cloaked, thus there is more of a penalty than just targeting and also a time limit and cost to using a cloak on a big ship. I mean think about it, if a large shield or armor reper costs all your cap in five minutes, wouldnt a massive thing that cloaks your ship suck your cap dry too? Just a thought, hi everyone
Mal Lokrano Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:37:00 - [2] I think it would be very hard to implement. What about black ops ships, they are T2 BS so would they undergo the same transision as well? Also it would make the cloaking ability for those ships useless, cause you would have to make the ship cap stable in order to use the cloak. But this brings up another issue, how much cap would you want it to expend per cycle and how long a would cycle go? This would have to be a good balance between all classes of ships that get hit with the contraints cause a BC will not be able to take the same cap hits as a BS without possibly heavy modifications which could reduce its effectiveness in battle. I understand the reasons behind this idea, and in a way it makes logical sense, but seeing the technological issues dealing with it you might as well take cloaking off BS and BC altogether except for ships like Black Ops and such. Plus cloaks already give the cloaked ship a disadvantage, it makes them target enemy ships slower and unless the cloaking skill is trained well up it also has a long recalibration time for the prototype (a little less for the improved). But this is just my thoughts on the subject, if it could be implemented without nerfing certain aspects of the game it might work. But I'd have to diasagree on this idea for the above stated reasons. Good idea though .
Freya Runestone Minmatar	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:39:00 - [3] Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule.
Big Socks Amarr Intersolar Research	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think?
Sinder Ohm Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:49:00 - [5] Originally by: Big Socks Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? I saw what you did there
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:53:00 - [6] I liked the idea where someone suggested cloaks require a fuel item to run with covert ops cloaks being very efficient fuel wise compared to proto cloaks on regular ships. It means you can still use the cloak in tactical situations but the days of leaving alts or going afk cloaked in a system all day would be over.
Diek Ran Amarr Autonums	Posted - 2008.05.03 08:57:00 - [7] Cloak disrupt probes? - can only be launched from certain ships (destroyers?) - need some warm-up time before coming into effect after been launched (clearly visible) - decloak any ship within a certain radius - covops cannot be decloaked (otherwise: big ship -> easy decloak)
RuleoftheBone Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:11:00 - [8] Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. One billion agreed.....aside from Force Recon's excluded as well. My suggestion was if a non-cloak-bonus-having combat ship has EITHER WCS/cloak fitted the hi slots should be disabled....but most find that a bit extreme .
Smantha Dering Caldari Sam's Space Guys	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Big Socks Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? I lol'd. That's an awesome idea! BTW OP, you said about bigger ship needing more power to cloak, bigger ships HAVE more power...so stop, just no ok.
Aadi Grox Minmatar Mafia	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Big Socks yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? how about a 40% scan resolution penalty? that would be pretty devastating to fit on a BS. oh, lets throw in a penalty where you can't lock after a certain time from decloaking to balance it out

Countess NotFarOut2	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:19:00 - [11] Originally by: Big Socks Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? Don't do that anymore! I was just taking a sip of coffee, almost splattered my screen with it!
Tommy TenKreds Animal Mercantile Executive	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:23:00 - [12] Originally by: Arbelia Amarsa How can a massive battleship stay cloaked for an hour right alongside a frigate cloaked? Wouldn't you think it would cost a TON of energy to keep a bigger ship cloaked? No. This is because Eve is a computer game, written in software. It is just as easy to code cloaking for a battleship as it is for a frigate. No additional energy is actually expended.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:25:00 - [13] I disagree. High energy output to achieve cloaking would negate the desired effects for cloaking. The drawback of cloaks is already implemented in eve. Cloaked ships in eve power down or "go dark" whilst cloaked, it not just a cover of the light reflected from the vessel, it's a degraded energy state, that reduces emissions or energy and fuel at the expanse of limit operability. From a RP and functionality angle your suggestions are contradictory. A larger ship would suffer not ill effects from cloaking due to the fact that the energy required to power the cloak is proportional to a ships size surely:P Eve deals with cloaks like this: Any ship can cloak, at the expense of a powering up phase after decloaking. Specialized ships have diverted systems to speeding and improving cloaking interaction at the expense of firepower and other systems.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.05.03 11:26:00 - [14] Originally by: Arbelia Amarsa Cloaking is a great part of the game, but i think the way some ships are allowed to use it are uncharacteristic and lead to boredom in the game. How can a massive battleship stay cloaked for an hour right alongside a frigate cloaked? Wouldn't you think it would cost a TON of energy to keep a bigger ship cloaked? When some players take ships to enemy space they often use cloaking ships of many sizes. For frigates it makes sense but cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships it just leads to boring ops where cloakers sit bored waiting for targets and targets sit bored waiting for cloakers. People are getting tired of it, its not a fun part of the game. Solution, simply make bigger ships have to expend cap to stay cloaked, thus there is more of a penalty than just targeting and also a time limit and cost to using a cloak on a big ship. I mean think about it, if a large shield or armor reper costs all your cap in five minutes, wouldnt a massive thing that cloaks your ship suck your cap dry too? Just a thought, hi everyone I dont know how many times I have to repeat this. CCP is aware of this. They are looking into it and have some ideas. BUT!! This will not happend until CCP do their whole package on local and how people use that as an intel tool. In other words, having a quick peek at local wont tell you if all the pilots in system are friendly or hostile. What they said was that there would still be possible to cloak ships, but it would be possible to scan them down with some effort. Except the specialised ships aka, covert ops, force recons, stealth bombers and black ops. And giving it fuel stats was not something they where very keen on. But as i said, local thingy was not going to change before they have a total package that fixes local and so on.
joshmorris AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.05.03 13:32:00 - [15] Erm you could also say that a battleship creates so much energy it can hold cloak but a little frigate how can that possible create enough energy :P But by far my most favorite cloaking "balance" would be this - Cloaks give signature radius reduction bonus. So example - A improved II on a bs would say reduce its signature by 98% (duno ?) so it is still technically probable but not on scanner. So if you know a battleship has just safe spotted and cloaked up you can try probing him but if you jump into a system and see nothing the guy who needed to take care of his kids is ok. Ships that use cov ops cloaks are still fine because of bonus on them is -100% sig radius. Ships that use improved IIs that have bonuses for them (black ops and sb's) maybe get a extra bonus to increase the reduction.
Demitria Fernir	Posted - 2008.05.03 13:47:00 - [16] Cloack Disruption Probe: Deactivates Cloaking Activities in a 25 AU Radius Inside The 25 AU Sphere, Ships Cannot Cloak Warp Speed from inside the 25 AU Sphere is reduced for all ship to 50% (even if the destination is outside the bubble) Probes Accuracy is reduced to 40%, Scan Speed is reduced to 30% for all ships. Specialized Ships scan speed (Cov Ops, Field Recon) is reduced to 50% instead. Requires T2 Materials, Lotta minerals, Expensive Production Times, Extremely Long ME/PE research time. seems equal to me :\|
RuleoftheBone Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.03 15:14:00 - [17] Originally by: Demitria Fernir Cloack Disruption Probe: Deactivates Cloaking Activities in a 25 AU Radius Inside The 25 AU Sphere, Ships Cannot Cloak Warp Speed from inside the 25 AU Sphere is reduced for all ship to 50% (even if the destination is outside the bubble) Probes Accuracy is reduced to 40%, Scan Speed is reduced to 30% for all ships. Specialized Ships scan speed (Cov Ops, Field Recon) is reduced to 50% instead. Requires T2 Materials, Lotta minerals, Expensive Production Times, Extremely Long ME/PE research time. seems equal to me :\| 25AU effect? In-warp webber? Probe killer? Nahh...not remotely overpowered
GB Man	Posted - 2008.05.03 15:43:00 - [18] The Klingons Disprove
The Mute Minmatar Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:04:00 - [19] Edited by: The Mute on 03/05/2008 16:04:33 Edited by: The Mute on 03/05/2008 16:04:05 Cloaks are fine and don't need "fixing" at the moment. Cloaks add variety to the game and as others have mentioned previously, already have some hefty penalties. It is a rare individual who can fit one to a BS and still be effective in combat. The most valid complaint I have heard regarding cloaks is the ability to sit afk cloaked in a system while other pilots don't know if you are playing or not. It is unfair to effect the gameplay of other while not actually playing the game but this is no different then sitting afk at a POS or in station. It is not cloaking that needs a fix but rather afk mechanics.
GB Man	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:16:00 - [20] Originally by: The Mute Edited by: The Mute on 03/05/2008 16:04:33 Edited by: The Mute on 03/05/2008 16:04:05 Cloaks are fine and don't need "fixing" at the moment. Cloaks add variety to the game and as others have mentioned previously, already have some hefty penalties. It is a rare individual who can fit one to a BS and still be effective in combat. The most valid complaint I have heard regarding cloaks is the ability to sit afk cloaked in a system while other pilots don't know if you are playing or not. It is unfair to effect the gameplay of other while not actually playing the game but this is no different then sitting afk at a POS or in station. It is not cloaking that needs a fix but rather afk mechanics. How does someone afk in a system affect your gameplay? Your not going to be able to use Local forever.

Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:17:00 - [21] Just make a sig radius penalty so they can be scanned down. It would be simple: 1. Cov ops cloaks could NOT be scanned down. 2. Bombers would be small with cloak so no problem. 3. Give Black ops a sig radius bonus when they are cloaked so they also cannot be scanned out. This covers all cloaking ships, and makes cloaking ravens a thing of the past. It's total crap that these things can just sit in a system and stay cloaked all day when the ship isn't even a cloaking ship!!!! Why did I spend all the time to train a cloaking ship only to have EVERY OTHER SHIP gain it's advantages? The scan penalty? PLEASE, one scan booster, and a raven is fine for ratting with a cloak. And velocity? A raven doesn't have to move when it's cloaked at a safe spot This is such an easy fix. And suck it up capital pilots.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:18:00 - [22] Just make a sig radius penalty so they can be scanned down. It would be simple: 1. Cov ops cloaks could NOT be scanned down. 2. Bombers would be small with cloak so no problem. 3. Give Black ops a sig radius bonus when they are cloaked so they also cannot be scanned out. This covers all cloaking ships, and makes cloaking ravens a thing of the past. It's total crap that these things can just sit in a system and stay cloaked all day when the ship isn't even a cloaking ship!!!! Why did I spend all the time to train a cloaking ship only to have EVERY OTHER SHIP gain it's advantages? The scan penalty? PLEASE, one scan booster, and a raven is fine for ratting with a cloak. And velocity? A raven doesn't have to move when it's cloaked at a safe spot This is such an easy fix. And suck it up capital pilots.
ZzZGilletteZzZ Caldari ZzZDefZzZ	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:30:00 - [23] Removing local will ****** pvp more than enhance it, yes people might be able to gank a few more ratters than they would otherwise but for general combat being able to find each other fosters more pvp. So what is it to be? \o/ yay we ganked a few ratters \o/ or keep the ability to easily locate each other to shoot at each other?
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.03 16:46:00 - [24] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 03/05/2008 16:47:33 Originally by: Big Socks Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? Nice try but yes: fitting a cloak device for non-suposed ships == disable AB and MWD use + 50% non-cloaked speed penalty bye bye nano stelth HAC
Dotard Minmatar Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.03 17:46:00 - [25] Edited by: Dotard on 03/05/2008 17:47:05 'nerfs suggested here are just too much. A more balanced "nerf" for using cloaking devices on non-cloaking bonused ships would be; 1. A serious reducion in speed when cloaked so there is a chance of being uncloaked by other ships and drones. 2. A phat delay in the ability to lock another player AND recloak after uncloaking so they cannot uncloak, lay on the pain, recloak. Simple, balanced nerfs to non-cloaking ships using cloaks. Oh, wait..........
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.05.03 18:08:00 - [26] Originally by: ZzZGilletteZzZ Removing local will ****** pvp more than enhance it, yes people might be able to gank a few more ratters than they would otherwise but for general combat being able to find each other fosters more pvp. So what is it to be? \o/ yay we ganked a few ratters \o/ or keep the ability to easily locate each other to shoot at each other? Nobody said anything about removing local. Tweak it...
Ioci Gallente Ioci Exploration	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:03:00 - [27] A Battleship with a cloak is useless. Even the ship that is supposed to have the cloak, the Black Ops is useless due to the cloak penalty still applying. Scan res penalty is -50% meaning it takes 200% longer to lock a target and a Battleship is neutralized in small fleet combat now because it takes an eternity to lock even without a cloak. Force Recon is the only cloaked ship you need to fear and it is designed to be cloaked. Your fears are unwarranted. Go about your business. If a BS uncloaks, they aren't going to get a lock on you before you warp off.
Ashlee Darksky	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. It already is penalised! A frigate when cloaked moves slower than a snail. A battleship is practically reduced to glacial speed, if not slower. Not to mention there is a re-activation penalty, and targeting penalty after decloaking - which cov ops do not suffer from. I wonder why this thread was started.... I think the OP probably has had a nasty experienced with cloaked ships and now wants the entire game changed to suit them. Typical and selfish! Another one of the few whiners getting the entire game nerfed for everyone else which eventually ends up with a omgwtfbbqpwn from everyone else. Go away and stop whining! This thread = fail
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:18:00 - [29] You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak????
Ashlee Darksky	Posted - 2008.05.03 19:39:00 - [30] Originally by: Megan Maynard You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak???? Please don't harp on about "unfair advantages"... unless you are one of those people who tries to pick off a lone ship thinking it's an easy target and then whines for the rest of the night after you got ganked by their friends Never been in a raven before in my life. If you can't catch a raven mission runner/ratter then you fail too.

MrWild	Posted - 2008.05.03 21:40:00 - [31] maybe they should bring back the idea that was scrapped of once you cloak it takes all your cap away.
ZzZGilletteZzZ Caldari ZzZDefZzZ	Posted - 2008.05.03 21:45:00 - [32] Originally by: Megan Maynard You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak???? My attitude is screw the ratters tbh, countless times they have escaped me personally and I agree its frustrating but I'm more interested in finding that 30 man nanogang with my alliance mates and fighting with them. Screwing up game mechanics just so we can catch more ratters doesn't make sense.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.05.04 00:36:00 - [33] Originally by: Big Socks Originally by: Freya Runestone Make it sort of like WCS, fit it and you penalize your ship in some way. maybe depending on size. cov ops excluded from the rule. yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? Dammit. Beat me to it.
Arbelia Amarsa Duchy of Amarsa	Posted - 2008.05.04 10:14:00 - [34] Originally by: Big Socks yeh thast a good idea, some sort of penalty, i think it should reduce your speed and maybe a locking penalty or something like that?? What u think? Epic idea I like the idea that CCP needs to fix the AFK dynamics of the game.
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.04 10:41:00 - [35] Originally by: Ioci Edited by: Ioci on 03/05/2008 19:06:49 A Battleship with a cloak is useless. Even the ship that is supposed to have the cloak, the Black Ops is useless due to the cloak penalty still applying. Scan res penalty is -50% meaning it takes 200% longer to lock a target and a Battleship is neutralized in small fleet combat now because it takes an eternity to lock even without a cloak. Force Recon is the only cloaked ship you need to fear and it is designed to be cloaked. Your fears are unwarranted. Go about your business. If a BS uncloaks, they aren't going to get a lock on you before you warp off. add on: And stealth Bombers.. fear them as well. I suppose then that you have never used smartbombs or FOF missiles? But thats neither here nor there. The skill, commitment, and energy required to sit AFK cloaked and coasting in an enemy system is currently less than that required to log off. The skill, commitment and energy required to catch an AFK cloaker when they finally do decide to act is insane. There is nothing even remotely resembling balance between the efforts involved in AFK cloaking vs catching an AFK cloaker. Defensive PVP is completely broken due to an inherently flawed game mechanic. Beef up cloaking, fine, make all kinds of changes to make cloaked ships tougher, better DPS, whatever, but make AFK cloaking in a heavily populated, heavily industrialized enemy system for more than a few minutes = death. Active cloaking is a different story, any game mechanism that prevents AFK cloaking should allow extended at-keyboard cloaking, or cloaked ships lose a very substantial part of their utility.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.05.04 10:51:00 - [36] Originally by: Megan Maynard You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak???? Then please tell me the difference between theese three: -Warping to safe and cloaking up -Warping to POS and sitting inside said POS until hostiles are gone -Warping to safe and logging The ratters out there with half a brain, still wont get killed if they watch local. Blaming that you cant get a kill cause of a single module is lame. It looks like some people think that if they have enough resources, people, whatever that grants them the right to kill the opponent. It doesnt work that way. And complaining that you couldnt kill one single ratter.. to bad, maybe go try and fight someone else who are trying to get a fight. And saying that a cloak is OMGWTFBBQ module, get a clue. - Crap movement, speed is the shait when cloaked - Recalibrationtime after decloaking, takes atleast 10 sec to start locking anything after decloaking. - Scan resolution penalty. Makes your lock take bloddy ages to complete. I can agree that cloaking could need some rethinking, but some of the proposals are just plain stupid. "Lets have a module that decloaks everything in 25 AU range, and webs you, and make you warp slower" "Make a pos module that makes it impossible for hostiles to cloak in system" "Let it kill all the cap if you fit a cloak" "Let modules go offline if you cloak" It`s all fine that cloaking gets looked into, but at the same time the whole local and probing needs a look into. Doesnt matter if you fit a cloak, you still show in local... And probing down ships in close to 20 sec... c`mon, you have barely made it out of warp and realigned before someone have a spot on you. And if they make probing for cloaked ship possible you will need to have the ability to detect it by watching scanner = Proberange less then 14 AU, and specialised ships like the covert op, stealthbomber, force recon and blackop would not be affected by it.
Gefex Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.05.04 11:34:00 - [37] I'd say the only real problem with cloaking is AFK cloaking for hours. They need to make either the system scanning array POS module able to scan out cloakers or they need to allow probers to do it. BUT not use 20s probes, make it like exploration probes, where it can take a while to do it and requires some setup. (AKA covering the entire system). This will keep the non-afkers fairly safe and deter people from going to take a nap.
joshmorris AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.05.04 11:38:00 - [38] Originally by: Gefex I'd say the only real problem with cloaking is AFK cloaking for hours. They need to make either the system scanning array POS module able to scan out cloakers or they need to allow probers to do it. BUT not use 20s probes, make it like exploration probes, where it can take a while to do it and requires some setup. (AKA covering the entire system). This will keep the non-afkers fairly safe and deter people from going to take a nap. Afk cloakers dont only exist in 0.0. Making another pos modual just to do everything for you isnt a very good idea.
Mysa Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.05.04 11:44:00 - [39] all cloaks should have 900cpu so its becomes imossible to fitt launcher/turrets in high slots. and if that happens all them chines farmers will start to npc in coverts wich takes years to make 1bill in bounty and therefor stopping all the real money trade and at the same time makes it esier to catch all them macroers on safespots. easy isnt it?
corebloodbrothers	Posted - 2008.05.04 12:07:00 - [40] i guess people who are aftehr rat killers want a 100% chance of succes. Ratters will quickly become extinct. The method or gear needed would be used by all people. i dont see difference between cloaking and other stuff. And about the cap crap, lets turn it around: the cloacking engine and techniques invented before the big collapse, require huge engines in size en space and fitting. therefor smaller ships that use a cloack loose 50% of fitting slots. Else the device and engine wotn fit in the ship. (SAME BS) Its eve, its never fair, balanced or easy. Its supposed to be like that. I rat and i lost a few ravens too really smart pvp-ers who not only used regular techniques but their brain. I applaud to them

Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.04 13:04:00 - [41] Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 04/05/2008 10:57:37 Originally by: Megan Maynard You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak???? Then please tell me the difference between theese three: -Warping to safe and cloaking up -Warping to POS and sitting inside said POS until hostiles are gone -Warping to safe and logging [snipped a bunch of stuff not closely related to cloaking balance] Warping to safe and cloaking. You are capable of acting at any time. You are completely and utterly invulnerable to all possible actions unless you are a complete newbie or idiot. You are taking your ball and going home. Warping to POS and sitting inside POS. Somebody built that POS. Who built your safespot? I'd imagine that your safespot was cheaper. The cost of a POS can easily exceed billions of isk. The biggest difference though? You can destroy a POS. The exact timing is of course dependent on reinforcement stront available. How many battleships would be required to fill a system to the point where you actually would have a decent chance of finding an AFK coasting cloaker? Do the math. Three dimensional sphere 100AU diameter, one battleship with drones for each 10,000km (lets be optomistic). I suspect you can kill 1000 POS'es simultaneously with 10,000 times fewer battleships. Warping to safe and logging. Ummm, you are no longer abusing a broken PVP mechanic? You don't have the option of simply waiting out any possible threats in utter and complete safety before you decide to act again? The advantage of suprise is not a small advantage, and AFK cloakers get it with absolutely no effort at all, while other PVPers actually have to do something, well, suprising gasp to get it. If you want to generate that suprise while you are at-keyboard, all the more power to you. There are a bunch of silly ideas out there for cloak "fixes" that will make cloaking useless. I've authored a couple of them There are also some that would not. If changes to PVP force AFK cloakers to actually gasp stay at keyboard when they are in an enemy system, or gasp even worse, actually have to shudder _worry_ about enemies, then some balance will be restored to cloaking PVP. There will likely need to be concessions the other way to make cloaking ships more viable, but that's fine by me provided that the "I win" button is removed from the pods of AFK cloakers.
mamolian Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.05.04 17:30:00 - [42] Really painful to read these threads.. Cloaking is fine as it is right now.. A cloaked ship is causing you no damage.. He cant shoot you while hes cloaked.. All he can do is pass on intel.. and unless he's on the same grid as the action its unlikely that intel is useful.. Cloaking on a regular ship.. if its nerfed.. will affect capitals and super capitals BADLY.. With current game mechanics its often safter to be cloaked at a safespot than inside your own POS.. especially when working along side other alliances may force you to share passwords.. Nevermind the fact hostiles can get inside the pos shield and bump you out.. If you need to step away from the computer for a few moments, its the only option but to fit a cloak.. Seriously.. every whine about a mechanic that is not broken.. results in CCP heavy's heavy nerf bat ******* up a perfectly good game mechanic.. and if you play long enough may even witness them reintroducing something nerfed years ago.. Theres already practically no chance of escape using a cloak jumping into gate camps on non cov ops ships.. And its quite easy to get rid of cloaking ratters.. with a sustained presence in a system.
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.05 03:24:00 - [43] Originally by: mamolian Really painful to read these threads.. Cloaking is fine as it is right now.. A cloaked ship is causing you no damage.. He cant shoot you while hes cloaked.. All he can do is pass on intel.. and unless he's on the same grid as the action its unlikely that intel is useful.. Cloaking on a regular ship.. if its nerfed.. will affect capitals and super capitals BADLY.. With current game mechanics its often safter to be cloaked at a safespot than inside your own POS.. especially when working along side other alliances may force you to share passwords.. Nevermind the fact hostiles can get inside the pos shield and bump you out.. If you need to step away from the computer for a few moments, its the only option but to fit a cloak.. Seriously.. every whine about a mechanic that is not broken.. results in CCP heavy's heavy nerf bat ******* up a perfectly good game mechanic.. and if you play long enough may even witness them reintroducing something nerfed years ago.. Theres already practically no chance of escape using a cloak jumping into gate camps on non cov ops ships.. And its quite easy to get rid of cloaking ratters.. with a sustained presence in a system. It's really painful to see people actually defending AFK cloaking AFK Cloaking is broken as it is right now. An AFK cloaked ship is a completely untouchable enemy, which may cause harm at any time, without warning, without risk to themselves. Even a cov ops ship can mount a point or two and be a halfarsed tackler. If the concern most people have is for capitals and supercapitals, then maybe there needs to be a new way to keep them safe. A specialized small POS tower whose sole purpose is to hangar a capship, and which may be owned by an individual player? Supercaps and caps need love too, I admit. Stepping away from the computer for a few minutes is legit - I do it myself from time to time Any change to cloaking or cloaking detection should not allow anything resembling "instant" detection. Cloaking is important and useful, it should be potent, and when used by specialized ships it should be very potent. What is should not be is a "get out of jail free card" as it is right now. There should not be much of a chance of escape from a well setup gate camp, except by specialised cloaking ships and fast frigates. Gate camps need to be broken up by organized gang tactics. This is consistent with the idea of a blockade. If anti-cloaking techniques requiring time to implement become possible at all, using cloaking ships or fast frigates to sneak through gate camps will be just as possible as it is now. As for cloaking ratters, you are correct. They can be driven out by a sustained presence - because they _want_ to be regularly active. It's the cloaking pvp warships sitting AFK in core industrial systems that is unacceptable - if they are AFK, they obviously have no interest in being active. No pain, all gain for AFK cloaking. That's completely counter to any possible balanced concept of PVP. AFK cloaking is severely destabilizing to the defense vs offense balance of PVP in EVE because any effective defense against AFK cloakers requires extreme diligence on the part of many defenders, and absolutely no effort whatsoever on the part of the AFK cloakers. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Lusulpher Raddick Explorations Friend or Enemy	Posted - 2008.05.05 05:55:00 - [44] Originally by: grgjegb gergerg Originally by: Lusulpher Edited by: Lusulpher on 05/05/2008 05:41:05 What the H* is all this? The simplest solution is what will most likely be instituted... Problem: AFK cloakers sitting in systems immune to be found.(ALL of them, not just talented/lucky stealth pilots) Solution: No module changes whatsoever, they are already balanced quite well. No new overcomplicated features, EVE is buggy enough. All the cloaked persons' client needs to do is make sure that a person(macroproofing needed) is responding to prompts from the server WHILE cloaked. No response = decloak, then everyone is free to probe them out. Stealth is for offense(stalking,sniping,active recon) AND for defense(safespotting with probers in local,getting through blob gatecamps,active recon). An ACTIVE cloaker should be able to move away from decloakers as best they can, but not be allowed to go away from their window for 2+ hours. Feel free to share information with CCP on macroproofing those prompts...as for me I'll be recording shiptypes with my cloak as usual. Don't rob me of my skillpoints...Thank you. Oog, so you WANT to answer captcha after captcha? So every 15 minutes, a window pops up that says "enter the number you see here"... Discuss... Live and Let Die...All of it...**null
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.05 12:29:00 - [45] Originally by: Lusulpher Originally by: grgjegb gergerg Oog, so you WANT to answer captcha after captcha? So every 15 minutes, a window pops up that says "enter the number you see here"... Discuss... I'd personally prefer a skill based/competitive solution, but captcha could do the job too, if it was implemented in a non-macroable method. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Yarry McYaryar Caldari Elite Angels Of Death	Posted - 2008.05.05 12:39:00 - [46] Edited by: Yarry McYaryar on 05/05/2008 12:45:31 "No ship that small has a cloaking device!" if anything, cloaks should be made for bigger ships, and as my good friend from star wars 5 stated, small ships shoudnt be able to use a cloak (cov ops obviously, but a kestrel dont make much sense), that said, i dont agree with havign a fleet cloaked on a gate for hours, thats dull, so soemthing like fuel (maybe power converters that you need to replace? cov ops burn themn slower but battleships need to go to a fitting place and resupply them every now and what not, make it so they are too unstable to be put in your cargohold... this idea may have other uses to!)is an excellant idea, i think. after reading some of page 2 about afk cloakers... if anything, thats what a cloak is for on big ships such as battlecruisers. if EVE was real, and i ratted for my moneh, then i would ofcourse have a cloak for when i needed tro go take a **** or have a nap. thats one of the reasons a cloak is a cloak! stealth is meant to hide people, although you shoudnt be able to do it indeffenatly, but you should be able to stay claoked for ~Hour, before needing some more converters, if they used my idea for fuel :P ------------------------------------------------ my main is Packa
Marcus Gideon	Posted - 2008.05.05 12:48:00 - [47] Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 05/05/2008 12:49:25 Why cloaks are getting a bum rep Originally by: Marcus Gideon Cloaking isn't what is at fault. The key problem everyone is talking about in the various anti-cloak threads are how to deal with people who are AFK. So address the AFK issue, not the Cloak tool they are using. The cloak is balanced right now. It essentially cripples anything not designed to use it. And nerfing the few ships that can use them is only removing their purpose in the game. You can't pout because the Assassin knows his job. But you can free up server space, and remove an annoyance at the same time, by having something to log off AFK players. If cloaks really are the devil "like my momma says", then I still think a mini-game or whatever seems lame. It's a high slot device, which only influences your ship. Why should a device somewhere in the system be able to affect any ship in that system. Forgive me for the reference, but I think Star Trek is somewhat close to this genre. They eventually got around to war with cloaking races, and devised their little net gizmos. Anchored to a particular spot, say in a perimeter around your POS, and they reveal anything passing between. Kinda like the detectors in Starcraft, if that's a more acceptable reference. If you want to see every inch of "your" system, then start building detectors and scatter them about. But don't tell the guy with 100mil SP in Covert Ops that he's gonna have to learn Chess or Minesweeper to keep playing.
Marcus Gideon	Posted - 2008.05.05 15:53:00 - [48] Alright, did some looking on Wikipedia, and found some new ideas. If people must have a way around Cloaks, then just tone it down a bit. - Instead of a POS module that reveals anything in the entire system, make anchorable items that have a reasonably local AOE. Like the nets on Star Trek. Position them to overlap fields, in a perimeter around your POS, and anything passing through will decloak automatically. If you're worried about getting ganked while mining or whatever, then deploy a couple in the field and recover them after you're done. - For personal searches, I'd create something along the same lines as a module for your ship. Probably another high slot, although might be able to downgrade to mids. It would be another form of Astrometric sensor, which would be great in that the best Cloak detectors would be other Covert Ops. How's this sound? Still letting you find those nasty Cloakers, but not ruining the time and effort spent by them at the same time. And no modification to Cloaks as they are, just adding a couple new toys.
Lusulpher Raddick Explorations Friend or Enemy	Posted - 2008.05.06 04:34:00 - [49] Edited by: Lusulpher on 06/05/2008 04:35:24 Originally by: Marcus Gideon Alright, did some looking on Wikipedia, and found some new ideas. If people must have a way around Cloaks, then just tone it down a bit. - Instead of a POS module that reveals anything in the entire system, make anchorable items that have a reasonably local AOE. Like the nets on Star Trek. Position them to overlap fields, in a perimeter around your POS, and anything passing through will decloak automatically. If you're worried about getting ganked while mining or whatever, then deploy a couple in the field and recover them after you're done. - For personal searches, I'd create something along the same lines as a module for your ship. Probably another high slot, although might be able to downgrade to mids. It would be another form of Astrometric sensor, which would be great in that the best Cloak detectors would be other Covert Ops. How's this sound? Still letting you find those nasty Cloakers, but not ruining the time and effort spent by them at the same time. And no modification to Cloaks as they are, just adding a couple new toys. Loving this...makes the hunt fun as you're are dodging the guy pinging your grid. But too many anchored modules don't make EVE less laggy...Generic scanner should at least be able to place these "Minesweepers" onto the same grid as a cloaked guy(especially if he is closeby for easy kills), but they should be slow as the cloaked ships while hunting them. Showing some red arrow in one direction on a grid would make everyone try to strafe the guy out and is the accepted tactic anyway. But now we lose coverage(while at the same time we don't want people cloaked in empire being revealed to bystanders). How about only your blues and alliance see that arrow(on their Tac Overlays? for lag reduction reasons) and you use your intel network to figure out if they are still a viable threat. There you go CCP, you have 2 ideas on balancing cloak now. Live and Let Die...All of it...null
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.05.06 07:32:00 - [50] oh noes! peaceful people playing the game use intended game mechanics like scanner/safespor/cloak to escape a gank! unfair! lets got to the forums and cry, maybe CCP nerfs it! EPIC... FAIL! who cares about cloaks? if you nerf cloaks ratters will instead warp to safespots and alt-q to be safe from gankers and probes and log in from time to time to see if some one is in there. there is NO NEED to fix a working game mechanics, instead you should be more constructive and post ideas about more important topics, e.g. how to fix assault frigs, or make POS warfare more fun, etc...

Arctic Lama	Posted - 2008.05.07 09:32:00 - [51] Afk cloakers pay the exact same money for the time they stay afk cloaked as you pay to play the game. Why should they not be allowed to use the time they bought in the most efficent way they see fit... They put aside the profit they could be doing by being active and instead choose to influence your gameplay because you are scared of hostiles in your system. Good game.
Lodhi Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.07 10:19:00 - [52] ships designed to use cloaks ie. blackops and covert ops and recons should still be able to use cloaks. others should not or should have a severe drawback of all other highslots be unusable while a cloak is installed.
Xplained Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.07 10:52:00 - [53] Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 04/05/2008 10:57:37 Originally by: Megan Maynard You are clearly a raven ratter wanting to keep an unfail advantage. The problem isn't the penalty's on the cloak, it's the fact that it's impossible to catch a solo battleship in 0.0 anymore if they are remotely intelligent. You have to get insanely luckly to catch a ratter on it's toes, and guess warp and land in their lap. (Even then they are usually alligned and get away.) And like I said before, who cares how fast they go if they warp to a safe and cloak???? Then please tell me the difference between theese three: -Warping to safe and cloaking up -Warping to POS and sitting inside said POS until hostiles are gone -Warping to safe and logging The ratters out there with half a brain, still wont get killed if they watch local. Blaming that you cant get a kill cause of a single module is lame. It looks like some people think that if they have enough resources, people, whatever that grants them the right to kill the opponent. It doesnt work that way. And complaining that you couldnt kill one single ratter.. to bad, maybe go try and fight someone else who are trying to get a fight. And saying that a cloak is OMGWTFBBQ module, get a clue. - Crap movement, speed is the shait when cloaked - Recalibrationtime after decloaking, takes atleast 10 sec to start locking anything after decloaking. - Scan resolution penalty. Makes your lock take bloddy ages to complete. I can agree that cloaking could need some rethinking, but some of the proposals are just plain stupid. "Lets have a module that decloaks everything in 25 AU range, and webs you, and make you warp slower" "Make a pos module that makes it impossible for hostiles to cloak in system" "Let it kill all the cap if you fit a cloak" "Let modules go offline if you cloak" It`s all fine that cloaking gets looked into, but at the same time the whole local and probing needs a look into. Doesnt matter if you fit a cloak, you still show in local... And probing down ships in close to 20 sec... c`mon, you have barely made it out of warp and realigned before someone have a spot on you. And if they make probing for cloaked ship possible you will need to have the ability to detect it by watching scanner = Proberange less then 14 AU, and specialised ships like the covert op, stealthbomber, force recon and blackop would not be affected by it. And a small rant to the peeps in alliances out there. How much stuff do you guys have now to make it very comfortable living in 0.0? - Cyno network to jump your bigships around with ease. - Jump bridges to jump your general stuff around, completely bypassing any serious threat in your space. - Cyno jammers, to keep big stuff out. - POS in almost every single system you find ratting/mining profitable. Have I missed anything? I agree, the cloaks need to be nerfed for non stealth/cov ops ships. BTW.. is that going to knock burn eden back to the stoneage, since all you do is sit in system cloaked/afk and playing on alts? yep, Mods stole my sig!
Kyax	Posted - 2008.05.07 12:28:00 - [54] If cloaking devices changed all it would encourage is more blobs something ccp does not want. As for risk, any combat situation has an element of risk, if you are stupid enough to mine with a hostile in system you deserve to die. Enough tactics already exist to deal with cloaked ships. Ships can only cloak if they are not targeted and away from any ships or structures. The target delay on locking is also terrible.
Aeo IV Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.07 12:45:00 - [55] Why are you assuming that cloaking (even in real life) will take massive amounts of energy to run?
Schani Kratnorr x13	Posted - 2008.05.07 13:50:00 - [56] cloaking does not need changing or nerfing. remove or change cloaking and all you get is people logging off instead, sound like more fun to you???
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.07 14:06:00 - [57] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr cloaking does not need changing or nerfing. remove or change cloaking and all you get is people logging off instead, sound like more fun to you??? At least if someone logs off, they have an excuse to be untouchable. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Schani Kratnorr x13	Posted - 2008.05.07 14:11:00 - [58] Originally by: Doc Iridium Originally by: Schani Kratnorr cloaking does not need changing or nerfing. remove or change cloaking and all you get is people logging off instead, sound like more fun to you??? At least if someone logs off, they have an excuse to be untouchable. And then they log in their main or a new scout. Once that is killed, a new scout is ready, then a new scout comes in, and more scouts scout those scouts. Then a scout is accidentally shot by another scout, and all the other scouts are mad. Nobody log on to their mains, and everyone is in here posting about it. I have been there, I have done that thread. Cloaking is the answer because it allows you to "be safe" while logged in. There was a need and CCP made cloaking the way it is now (more or less). If you change it, or recode it, or do anything to fiddle with the mechanics of cloaking, you'd better be ready to face the consequences.
Schani Kratnorr x13	Posted - 2008.05.07 14:19:00 - [59] Also... From the Features and Ideas: Rules and a Definition post for this forum. Quote: 5) Before posting an idea, please check the Commonly Proposed Ideas Thread to see if there's already a topic running for it. Reposts will be locked and routed to the active thread. Here's the cloaking thread for this forum - http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=498000
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.07 14:37:00 - [60] Originally by: Schani Kratnorr Originally by: Doc Iridium Originally by: Schani Kratnorr cloaking does not need changing or nerfing. remove or change cloaking and all you get is people logging off instead, sound like more fun to you??? At least if someone logs off, they have an excuse to be untouchable. And then they log in their main or a new scout. Once that is killed, a new scout is ready, then a new scout comes in, and more scouts scout those scouts. Then a scout is accidentally shot by another scout, and all the other scouts are mad. Nobody log on to their mains, and everyone is in here posting about it. I have been there, I have done that thread. Cloaking is the answer because it allows you to "be safe" while logged in. There was a need and CCP made cloaking the way it is now (more or less). If you change it, or recode it, or do anything to fiddle with the mechanics of cloaking, you'd better be ready to face the consequences. I'm quite ready to see something resembling balance implemented into the cloak/PVP game And I'm quite ready to face the consequences, being a cov ops 5 pilot myself. In fact I look forward to it. http://www.newforms.nl/eve/skills/Doc_Iridium Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.