EVE Search - [Issue] Regular cloaking devices need nerfing

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Regular cloaking devices need nerfing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tusko Hopkins HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 - [1] Ratting raven, in our own space, alerted by BACON warps to safe, cloaks and smacks on local. Stays for weeks. This should go. Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed to either work less reliably, be probeable somehow or give more penalties than what they are giving today. First alternate to CSM.
Shenko Minara	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:10:00 - [2] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Ratting raven, in our own space, alerted by BACON warps to safe, cloaks and smacks on local. Stays for weeks. This should go. Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed to either work less reliably, be probeable somehow or give more penalties than what they are giving today. You're also stopping him ratting and earning anything. If you're not good enough to catch him, then my only suggestion would be to stop posting. -- 99% of Eve-o posters should stop posting. This probably includes me, but definitely includes you.
Tadashi Nishimoto	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:12:00 - [3] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Ratting raven, in our own space, alerted by BACON warps to safe, cloaks and smacks on local. Stays for weeks. This should go. Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed to either work less reliably, be probeable somehow or give more penalties than what they are giving today. Yeah....no. Personally think that the prohibiting of module use while cloaked as well as targeting penalties work better than needed.
Haradgrim Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:14:00 - [4] Emphatic NO -- Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:44:00 - [5] The penatlties given to a Battleship fitting a cloaking device is nomrally enough ot make is next to ineffectual when used for PVP unless you happen to have a particualrly dumb enemy. So no. ---
ViolenTUK Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:33:00 - [6] Edited by: ViolenTUK on 22/05/2008 18:33:32 NO! If you read the anti-cloak threads you will see they are started with the same premise. "I canÆt do anything to the afk cloaker". Before going into the mechanics please think about who started the thread and why would they post about it. Any of these threads are started by the same group of people - Pirates. Its simple Pirates want THEIR way to risk free pirating, as they donÆt want you to cloak when you see them come into the system. Im all for removing local in 0.0 systems. This would actually help pirates, as they would be able to enter a system and probe the system without local giving them away. Remember that this would also mean that they couldnÆt probe out anyone who is cloaked in the system. The lone ratter might be a lone ratter or he might not. The simple truth is that Pirates have an easy time in 0.0 probing out lone or small gang 0.0 ratters. 0.0 pilots know the risk to them and that is a fun part of the game. I accept Pirates in eve it makes the game more interesting. I feel that local in 0.0 makes the game a little too easy for the pirates and giving them their way by nerfing cloaking devices just makes Pirating risk free. Originally by: Commonly seen suggestion * Probes that can be used by probe launchers to scan down and locate the EXACT location of cloaked ships There is no way I would ever be able to agree with probes being able to scan out a cloaked ship whether you had system soverenty or not. Cloaked ships are cloaked and as such should not be able to be detected by any means at all. I am sympathetic towards the idea of a player owned station fitted with a module that could give away an approximation of where a cloaked ship is IF the owner of the said player owned station help sovereignty. I still donÆt like the idea at all. Your are currently allowed to use a cloaking device anywhere in empire where sovereignty is held so adding restriction to 0.0 doesnÆt seem reasonable at all. The whole premise of your post is based upon the intelligence gathered from local chat in my opinion you should not have access to at all. If you couldnÆt read local in 0.0 you wouldnÆt be making this post. As for afk cloaking you canÆt tell me for sure whether he is afk or not. What you are doing is assuming he is afk because the pilot in your system who is cloaked is acting in a manner you presume to be afk. ItÆs this simple. You donÆt know if he is afk or not. Originally by: Commonly seen suggestion * Have ALL cloaking modules only be allowed to be active for a certain duration of time (so say 15min-30min), requiring the person that is cloaked to in a sense "refresh" their cloaking electronics. No. What you are doing here is nerfing cloaking. This isnÆt necessary at all. Cloaking is a completely legitimate tactic to gather intelligence on the activities of a hostile. If this type of change was introduces it would affect pilots playing the game who are fully at their computer and cognisant of what is happening in the system. www.eve-players.com
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:43:00 - [7] Definitely against this. Get rid of exploiting log-server data instead. Burn the BACON, don't nerf the cloaks. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Malar HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Shenko Minara Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Ratting raven, in our own space, alerted by BACON warps to safe, cloaks and smacks on local. Stays for weeks. This should go. Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed to either work less reliably, be probeable somehow or give more penalties than what they are giving today. You're also stopping him ratting and earning anything. If you're not good enough to catch him, then my only suggestion would be to stop posting. Noname noob talking about not being good enough to catch someone? WTS clue dude. Thumbs up for this one. --------------------------------------------- Comments in this post are mine and mine only
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:52:00 - [9] The only thing I'd remotely support with regards to cloaking device is that some form of captcha must be put in after two hours of being activated. I don't mind you using the mechanics to be sneaky and stuff, but it's another one entirely to get into a system, hit the cloak, and go to work for the day messing with everyone. However if you're being sneaky, waiting for an opportunity, and use it. More power to you. however, if there is a concerted effort to find you... ...the things gotta have a tailpipe. if 10 people are in system and looking for you, there should be a high-skill high cost probe that can find it. Maybe it gets you with in 10,000m or something, so you still have to have an element of luck, but I do think there needs to be some way to make it a little more difficult than 'ha ha no one has a lock sucker' but also don't nerf the **** out of it. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:25:00 - [10] Cloaks on unspecialized ships are LARGELY overpowered. Originally by: Shenko Minara You're also stopping him ratting and earning anything. If you're not good enough to catch him, then my only suggestion would be to stop posting. A situation where the 1 farmer can't be found & killed by vastly superior forces should never be present. Isk shouldn't come from free single player-kind of game in 0.0. There is absolutely no way to counter this in game right now. Biggest unbalance.

Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:36:00 - [11] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 22/05/2008 19:36:30 Originally by: Jade Constantine Definitely against this. Get rid of exploiting log-server data instead. Burn the BACON, don't nerf the cloaks. How the hell is BACON relevant to this argument? I know the OP mentioned it, but it's no different, for the purposes of nerfing cloaks, than the cloaker checking local. Also, burning bacon is just inhumane. Chewy, not crispy! ------------------ Fix the forums!
ViolenTUK Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2008.05.22 20:26:00 - [12] Edited by: ViolenTUK on 22/05/2008 20:27:11 Originally by: Sariyah Cloaks on unspecialized ships are LARGELY overpowered. Absolute nonsense. They are largely UNDERPOWERED. You cant lock, you cant fire, you can barely move, you cant activate any module, you have a ôcant lockö delay, you have a massive scan resolution cut, you cant receive any repairs and you have a re-activation delay. Cloaks on unspecialised ships are already nerfed all the way down. Originally by: Sariyah A situation where the 1 farmer can't be found & killed by vastly superior forces should never be present. Isk shouldn't come from free single player-kind of game in 0.0. There is absolutely no way to counter this in game right now. Biggest unbalance. Firstly is he actually a farmer? This is what you are calling him. He could have a very justified reason to be there all we have is your word. There is no way you can say this is a free single player-kind of game in 0.0 particularly since your justification is that he hides with his cloaking device. Can he rat with his cloaking device engaged? No. You arenÆt meant to be able to find him that is the point. Why should you have a game mechanic to counter this? You have already countered his activities the instant he activated his cloaking device since he no longer able to do anything except hope you will go away. You are his counter. No unbalance at all. www.eve-players.com
Ishina Fel Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.05.22 20:28:00 - [13] Cloaking devices have way too little requirements and are way too powerful. Why can a frigate sized module cloak a Titan? Thumbs up for changes.
ViolenTUK Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2008.05.22 20:31:00 - [14] Originally by: Ishina Fel Cloaking devices have way too little requirements and are way too powerful. Why can a frigate sized module cloak a Titan? Thumbs up for changes. They arenÆt too powerful in fact quite to the contrary please read my above post. I understand what you mean regarding a cloaking device that can legitimately be fitted to a frigate can be fitted to a titan. Perhaps there should be a cloaking device for capital ships with different requirements. www.eve-players.com
Yara Stone Southern Productions	Posted - 2008.05.22 23:26:00 - [15] Edited by: Yara Stone on 22/05/2008 23:26:13 Cloaking is a perfectly good tactic for everybody to use. But I would like to see the cloak take cap and nurf cap recharge so this ôcloaking afk for 10 hoursö stops happening. It really only makes sense to shut everything down to a minimum to have it work on ship that was not designed to use it fully.
Voculus E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.05.23 02:07:00 - [16] _________________________________________________________
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.23 09:53:00 - [17] Edited by: Sariyah on 23/05/2008 09:55:35 Originally by: ViolenTUK [...] Dude you are basically saying here that it's OK for a farmer to be invulnerable / invincible right? I should bring say a 10 man group for a 10 belt system to make sure he doesn't earn any isk, and make sure we're there for hours till he logs? And then he comes back when we got bored? Yes this game sucks right now for having that IDDQD option. Cloaker ships should be really, really crap at ratting. A regular Raven should not be able to rat effectively while having a fitted and active cloak. Instead now 0.0 is filled with farmers, that invade other people's space. You can have a powerful alliance of hundreds of active PvPers that can actually defend its space and you cannot do anything against the few cloaker farmers that infest your space. How in the name of god is that balanced and OK for you?? Unless you're one of them?? I know there's lots of these players proven by the posts above. Yeah it would suck to lose the invincibility, right? Yep, we need a way to be able to somehow scan for these, or some other mechanism that allows you to be able to find and kill the offender given you're prepared properly.
Gumdrop	Posted - 2008.05.23 10:19:00 - [18] This is simple, make it so if you have a cloak fitted to your ship you cant target rats, but you can still target players so pvp wont be effected and it will stop the macro ratters.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.05.23 10:22:00 - [19] Originally by: Sariyah Edited by: Sariyah on 23/05/2008 09:55:35 Originally by: ViolenTUK [...] Dude you are basically saying here that it's OK for a farmer to be invulnerable / invincible right? I should bring say a 10 man group for a 10 belt system to make sure he doesn't earn any isk, and make sure we're there for hours till he logs? And then he comes back when we got bored? Yes this game sucks right now for having that IDDQD option. Cloaker ships should be really, really crap at ratting. A regular Raven should not be able to rat effectively while having a fitted and active cloak. Instead now 0.0 is filled with farmers, that invade other people's space. You can have a powerful alliance of hundreds of active PvPers that can actually defend its space and you cannot do anything against the few cloaker farmers that infest your space. How in the name of god is that balanced and OK for you?? Unless you're one of them?? I know there's lots of these players proven by the posts above. Yeah it would suck to lose the invincibility, right? Yep, we need a way to be able to somehow scan for these, or some other mechanism that allows you to be able to find and kill the offender given you're prepared properly. He's not invulnerable, just hard to find and catch, that's a difference. What would be the point of the cloak if you could scan him down ? You may as well remove cloaks from the game then. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Poreuomai Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.05.23 10:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed Stealth ships like the Hound also use non covert-ops cloaking devices, should they be nerfed too ?

Dav Varan	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:43:00 - [21] NO cloaks are fine , get rid of local though :)
Dav Varan	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:44:00 - [22] NO cloaks are fine , get rid of local though :)
Kyle Frost Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.23 15:11:00 - [23] Originally by: Jade Constantine Definitely against this. Get rid of exploiting log-server data instead. Burn the BACON, don't nerf the cloaks. I agree 100% ------ Let the gun do the talking...
Phelan Driscoll GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.23 15:22:00 - [24] Originally by: Poreuomai Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Regular, non covert-ops cloaking devices should be nerfed Stealth ships like the Hound also use non covert-ops cloaking devices, should they be nerfed too ? Bombers wouldn't suck so much though if they did use covert ops cloaks. snip Signature is totally inappropriate and not allowed on EvE Forums. Contact us at [email protected] if you have any queries - Valorem
ViolenTUK Vindicated Exiles	Posted - 2008.05.23 15:50:00 - [25] Edited by: ViolenTUK on 23/05/2008 15:51:34 Originally by: Sariyah Dude you are basically saying here that it's OK for a farmer to be invulnerable / invincible right? I should bring say a 10 man group for a 10 belt system to make sure he doesn't earn any isk, and make sure we're there for hours till he logs? And then he comes back when we got bored? There is no way you can call a farmer invulnerable or invincible because he hides behind his cloaking device. He is neither invulnerable or invincible he simply cant do anything at all. If you bring a 10 man group to a system that has only the cloaked ship in its local and you infer that you need to stay there that tells me that simply isnÆt one of your systems since you would have a sustained presence in this system in the first place. While he is hiding you could be ratting in the same belts that he was ratting. If you want a system free of ratters or any other kind of player then you have to take hold of that system yourself. If someone sees an empty system you are guaranteed they would rather rat there then pick a system that has a massive group of hostiles right? This should be obvious. Originally by: Sariyah Yes this game sucks right now for having that IDDQD option. Cloaker ships should be really, really crap at ratting. A regular Raven should not be able to rat effectively while having a fitted and active cloak. No cloaked ships shouldnÆt be touched or modified in any way at all. Cloaked ships have already been nerfed by a large margin. Originally by: Sariyah Instead now 0.0 is filled with farmers, that invade other people's space. You can have a powerful alliance of hundreds of active PvPers that can actually defend its space and you cannot do anything against the few cloaker farmers that infest your space. This is one point you have mentioned and I sympathize with. Cloaking devices shouldnÆt be nerfed but a sovereignty holder should be able to anchor a device which may help approximate a cloaked ship but this shouldnÆt affect the cloaking device directly. There have been many suggestions in the features and ideas section of the forum and most of them have a ôremove local chatö appended to them at some point. www.eve-players.com
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.05.23 16:12:00 - [26] Originally by: Jade Constantine Definitely against this. Get rid of exploiting log-server data instead. Burn the BACON, don't nerf the cloaks. This, tbh. CCP has stated publicly that they're going to change the logserver and/or the way it works to make BACON and similar applications ineffective. There have also been rumors regarding local and constellation chat - support a thread like that, as changing it to Constellation Chat and removing Local System chat would go a LONG way toward removing the ISK farmers and their cloaking Ravens from your space - they'll never know when it's safe to rat or not, and after you gank them enough times they'll move away. Originally by: techzer0 I'm invincible until proven wrong
White Ronin	Posted - 2008.05.24 09:37:00 - [27] No support.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2008.05.24 09:56:00 - [28] How will nerfing cloaks effect a ratter as instead of warping to a safe and cloaking he will just warp to a safe and log?. The penalties on cloaks at the moment make a BS virtually useless in conventional pvp as things stand so if anything they need a buff. PS: RK & bruce suck at pvp.
Etil DeLaFuente Res Publica Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.05.24 12:00:00 - [29] supported only for non covert cloaking devices. Covert ops shouldn't get probeable at all while the rest should be.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.24 13:33:00 - [30] Lets face it, in all probability the players that we're talking about here are farmers selling their isk for real-world cash. I see them in local all the time in the backwater areas of our space, same character online in the same system 23/7, a brief flash of a raven on directional scan as he warps to his safespot before cloaking, every belt full of his unlooted and unsalvaged wrecks. I would be in favour of a rebalancing of proto and improved cloaks to make ratting impractical when one is fitted, combined with having the 15-minute aggro timer apply to 0.0 ratting to prevent farmers using ctrl-q instead. -----------



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.