| 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.
-----------
|
|
|
Xebov Darklight
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:03:00 -
[31]
I would like another Idea to nerf this that was in speak short befor the exploration came in. The idea was that all Ships that are no Cloakers (Recon Skill Ships, Covert Ops Skill Ships and Black Ops Skill Ships are the only Cloakers) can be scanned out via Ship scanning probes, that would resolve your issue because it would be possible to scan the guys down and kill them.
|
Kuranta
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:34:00 -
[32]
Regular cloaks need to be tweaked.
|
Judas Jones
Black Company
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:37:00 -
[33]
No, in fact i think the whole intel industry needs reworking, local, probes, stealth, EM signature reductions (reduces range of others being able to scan you) cloaks..the whole nine yards
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 07:20:00 -
[34]
I do not support nerfing cloaks....
I support minefields to fix your belts....
|
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:03:00 -
[35]
/signed
Nerf cloaked isk farmers and nerf BACON also.
My suggestion is, no target locks AT ALL for a ship fitting a cloak if it's not a bomber/covops/recon until the cloak is put offline.
If it's a hauler, it doesn't need to lock things anyway. If it's a combat ship, they can online it again after the fight when their capacitor recharges.
--
Let Us Avoid Systems Via Autopilot |
Slickdrac
JET FORCE
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:24:00 -
[36]
Cloaks are fine, nerf afk cloakers.
I suck at forums |
Maidel
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 17:55:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Maidel on 26/05/2008 17:55:53
Ok - there are two problems here.
One is AFK cloakers, the other is perfectly safe ratting cloakers.
AFK covert ops cloakers = abslolutely fine. This is what they are designed for - break into system and send back info. I hate them, but they work as intended - you get them on the way in or out, or not at all.
What makes these ships ok is that they have little or no other capabilities to make isk. They are there for specific PVP reason. (yes you can rat in some cloaked recon ship, but not very effectively.)
Now - ratting cloakers. These are the issue. They are perfectly safe and can make isk - all that stops them is other people entering the system - the second you leave, they start again. There is almost no way of catching them unless they make a really really bad mistake.
So the solution. Make ships either cloakers or non cloakers. This depends on the ship, not the cloak so ships that are designed to cloak (like half the recons and stealth bombers) that cannot use covert ops cloaks can still cloak perminantly.
All other ships have EITHER a timer attached to their cloaking OR are able to be scanned out. I would vote for the later.
Therefore PVP ships designed to cloak and still work entirely as intended, but isk making carebears cannot.
|
Kame Malice
Mitsukashi Holdings Limited
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 18:03:00 -
[38]
Effects of a cloak: (nerfs)
No locking capabilities
No modual capabilities
Extreemly slow speed
Can not warp
Locking dely after uncloaking
Recloak delay
Benefit of cloaking: (buffs)
Not being seen (or locked) (unless someone gets within 2kM of you)
I rest my case
/unsigned
|
Maidel
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 18:08:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kame Malice
Effects of a cloak: (nerfs)
No locking capabilities
No modual capabilities
Extreemly slow speed
Can not warp
Locking dely after uncloaking
Recloak delay
Benefit of cloaking: (buffs)
Not being seen (or locked) (unless someone gets within 2kM of you)
I rest my case
/unsigned
Yes - but that only works IF you remain in that state perminately - which you dont.
For the rest of the time, when you are uncloaked, you can warp as normal and fire as normal (a few penalties there still) but as soon as 'enemys' appear you, dissappear.
For an aware and careful person you are 100% safe. And, in eve, nothing should be 100% (hell you are safer cloaked than in highsec space!)
|
Aadi Grox
Minmatar Mafia
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 18:14:00 -
[40]
strong no
|
|
|
Neti Keire
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 23:17:00 -
[41]
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.
No. |
Lutien
z-inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 10:50:00 -
[42]
when a non-covert ship use's a cloak, let the cloak automtic gain heat dammage, he can cloak but not indefently. After a while the cloak will burn out and your cloak drops.
|
Gyro DuAquin1
Tri Optimum
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:26:00 -
[43]
Imo cloaks in general are fine. Its just the problem with the farmers, which are not all isk sellers.
Also i think that gettin rif of farmers is simply done by getin someone in the system with a cloak recon with at least 3 points. that should fix the problem for you.
I dislike isk seeling a lot but I also dislike the ppl that are unable to get farmers out of their region with a few hours of effort.
|
Sir Substance
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 11:42:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Malar
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.
greets. non-noname non-noob here. if hes been around for weeks and you cant catch him, you fail. epicly.
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 00:03:00 -
[45]
No support. Bacon is already going to be burned by CCP and cloaks and local are just fine in all other respects. Not that I find anything particularly wrong with Bacon.
Put in some effort or at least allow those that do to enjoy their victory. Even if it's only the victory of not being easy meat for you.
Windjammer
|
AKULA UrQuan
Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 00:37:00 -
[46]
Just have the thing use cap scaled to ship mass and be done with it.
|
Sin Fae
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:52:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Definitely against this.
Get rid of exploiting log-server data instead. Burn the BACON, don't nerf the cloaks.
Agree, delete issue
|
Brengholl
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 00:51:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Brengholl on 04/07/2008 00:53:49
leave cloaks alone... theyre very hard to use on non cloakable ships as is
the only real problem here are isk farmers...
those need to be hunted and kicked out
why does some carebear in your space bother you so much...
you can stay in system for a while... he wont be cloaked forever... he'll get bored and try to run or log
the ones sitting there 23/7 arent carebears... they're bot users the solution to those is banning everyone who plays actively for 23/7 because that's not possible without violating the EULA
the same principle is applyed on highways (someplaces)... if you get to the toll too fast you get a speeding ticket... no other hard evidence needed, you've had to be speeding to get there that fast
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 01:32:00 -
[49]
What they need is fuel, I'd suggest heavy water since there seems to be a surplus.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:22:00 -
[50]
Cloaks are the only counter to probes. Not signed. if you want to nerf cloaks, nerf probes first.
Now something to keep a ship from cloaking and going AFK for hours at a time I would support. A general nerf, no way.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
|
|
Ranita Drell
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:55:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Maidel
Now - ratting cloakers. These are the issue. They are perfectly safe and can make isk - all that stops them is other people entering the system - the second you leave, they start again. There is almost no way of catching them unless they make a really really bad mistake.
Why is that an issue? There are lots of safe ways to make ISK. Ratting in 0.0 and running to hide whenever someone enters the system doesn't strike me as anything particularly overpowered or exploitive, because your ISK making activity is so easily disrupted, even if your ship/pod are at minimal risk.
If there is a problem, it is the ease with which local can be used to identify the presence of threats/targets.
|
Kasheem Cetanes
coracao ardente
The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 07:52:00 -
[52]
Cloaks need to be changed, its REALLY obnoxious to go through TCF / UNL Space and in every system there is a TCF/UNL Sponsored farmer from asia. They fit WCSs and Nanos and Cloak. All I'm asking is that it is made so cloaking is very cap draining and you can't stay in that state for super long, or that I have a chance to probe through cloak.
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 08:51:00 -
[53]
No support. The OP is just another lazy pirate crying for easy kills.
Windjammer
|
kyoukoku
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:35:00 -
[54]
The whole point to a cloak is just that. It cloaks you from being detected. IF it were to be nerfed any further than it already has it will no longer be worthy of the "cloak" epithet. So a big definite NO to this.
Ninja Salvaging ain't stealing
from desusig.crumplecorn.com
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:47:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Esmenet on 04/07/2008 14:47:52
Imo having the non cov ops ships use fuel would be a good idea but other than that cloaks dont really need a nerf. If the ratters cant use cloaks they just go back to logging off.
|
Ava Santiago
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 22:57:00 -
[56]
The OP's idea is horrible. Big no.
Ships need to be harder to find and kill - not less.
Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts. |
waristina
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 23:18:00 -
[57]
If you have skilled up to use the cov-ops/recon/black-ops ships then you should have the benefit of using a cloaking device to it's fullest abilities. If on the other hand you have trained up your toon to farm isk in your raven and want a system that guarantee's your safety by letting you cloak, then the answer is no you should not be allowed the same abilities that a specialist cloaking gains.
I'm not talking about cloaked speeds/locking times after de-cloaking or those type of abilities. The abilities i'm talking about is the 100% guaranteed ability to hide from any ships in the system. Gaining that ability in my mind is fundamentally wrong and is sending out the wrong message about cloaking.
For me it's simple, if your in a specialised cloaking ship then you will be 100% undetectable. If on the other hand your in a farming raven then you do not get that 100% undetectability, in some way to be determined you would be detectable. There are suggestions already in this thread as to how that could be done, but at the end of the day something has to be done about all the isk farmers in 0.0 without impacting on the specialised cloaking shiptypes.
|
Vuxacha
VTECHS
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 01:00:00 -
[58]
I don't really support this. Although I think that maybe they should consider changing log off rules for a ship based on whether it recently had a cloak up. We can't nerf logoffski for legitimate reasons of fairness to those who suffer network issues. We can't nerf cloaks, because they really are working pretty fairly atm.
Combining logoffski with cloakski and it starts to get annoying though.
The solution I found was to use a helios. Run right up to him, flag him pvp, and run like hell while you wait for backup to arrive. If you're lucky, he logs off and dies easily. Unlucky and he'll warp safe, warp safe, cloak. Does cost him time though, which is the point I guess.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 12:53:00 -
[59]
Agreed.
Cov Ops cloaks should make the few ships that can fit them pretty much impossible to find... though some mechanics should be put in place to thwart them as there is zero counter beyond sheer dumb luck.
Normal cloaks should only reduce the ship's signature radius, not make it outright invisible to sensors. A 90-95% reduction in signature radius would make it adequite, reducing a raven down to a sig of about 5. Not impossible to find, but not easy by far. Likewise when the scanning ship warps to them they don't show up on overview, forcing the pilot to look out into space visually to find the cloak shimmer somewhere out there.
|
Maabuss
Caldari
Exiles of Chaos
The Core Collective
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:38:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Maabuss on 11/08/2008 22:38:45
Cloaks are fine the way they are. Why do people insist on saying they are overpowered, when they were introduced pre-nerfed to hell and back and haven't changed? IMHO, if you can't catch a Cloaker in YOUR space, then you shouldn't be in nullsec. A bubble, and an Instalock 'Ceptor and the cloaker dies. Simple, easy, gaurenteed. I've done it, and can do it. I use both Cloaks and I hunt Cloakers, it's not that hard, you just don't want to have to put the effort into it.
For example...... if the guy you are hunting is in a Raven, in the belt, at say.... 60km, he sees you, Cloaks, he can't warp, can't lock, can't reload, can't activate mods, and can't hardly move. All you have to do, is set a course in his general direction, and if you are in a Ceptor, you should be able to decloak him as he's only capable of approximately 25-30m/s.
So, to say again..... There is NOTHING wrong with Cloaks. They are just fine the way they are and they work just as intended.
Regards, Maabuss.
____________________________________________
You Can't Outrun Death Forever, But You Can Make The Bastard Work For It. |
|
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente
Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:02:00 -
[61]
AFK / Cloaks
---
Don't take my ranting personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word.
"Players don't want Variety. They want THE BEST" |
Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 04:51:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Sylthi on 12/08/2008 04:55:23
Can't support this. Cloaks are weak enough (read: limited enough in useful application) as is. Leave them be.
The REAL solution to this would be for CCP to actually start enforcing their own rules and get rid of a lot of these isk selling farmers.
No support.
*
* |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 04:57:00 -
[63]
I read through this thread. Got a different suggestion:
Bigger ship = longer time for cloak to take effect on ship e.g. for a raven, it would take what, 20 seconds to full cloak? That's enough time to find them if they haven't ss'd.
Furthermore, I should point out that using a cloak to save your behind from a roaming gang is a perfectly legitimate way to do so. Otherwise, it would just be a matter of time till the probes got to you :P
San Matari Official forums |
Pherusa Plumosa
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 05:41:00 -
[64]
I don't mind Covert Ops Cloaking devices, they are just fine how they are. (Recons, Cov Ops, Blackops, maybe stealth bombers) If someone trained up for Cov Ops, he can sit on a Safe Spot afk as long has he wants.
But T1 Cloaking Ratters, afk cloakers and similar folks are just lame. 100% security for nearly no penalty (locktime? Who cares...)
Making them scannable with ship probes (30 seconds) is a bit to much imho. What about giving them simililar signatur radiuses like plexes. So you would have to get your quest probe launcher and several different probes to pin them down?
__________________________________________________
|
Taradis
Amarr
The Imperial Assassins
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 08:31:00 -
[65]
Their's nothing wrong with cloaks leave them the hell alone to many things are going to shit anyway because of whiners like u  u don't like it
ADAPT OR QUIT!
|
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 02:43:00 -
[66]
I stands to reason that a larger ship is harder to cloak than a smaller one, but the current non cov-ops cloaks use a smallish fixed amount of CPU.
If there was also a percentage of total cpu used, it would make them harder to fit, with out disadvantaging smaller ships.
The balancing team would have to do the exact calculations, but between 2.5% and 10% cpu reduction for having a cloak fitted is what I think is sensible.
If local gets a nerf, then so should non cov-ops cloaks.
|
night shiftstar
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 02:56:00 -
[67]
Cloak is nerffed as it is enough over pvp issues.
If u say Durability for cloaking after a few hrs activity, then ok.
|
Lya SOS
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 18:33:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Lya SOS on 02/11/2008 18:33:03
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.
can ships with cloaks cloak other ships ?
|
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar
Ex Cruoris Libertas
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 07:33:00 -
[69]
aye this should be fixed... when cloaked you should not be able to broadcast (chat) in LOCAL without giving away your position....
have enabled cloak disable local chat ;)
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 11:29:00 -
[70]
introduce new panelty:
- 50% optimal
- 50% fall off
- 50% misile flight time
- 50% misile velocity
- 200% missile/turet signature radious
- 50% misile explo velocity
stealth bomebrs/black ops get gonus to remove that panelties, ratters fixed ;]
Quote:
It's not a good idea to place a Exotic Dancers in a Giant Secure Container. The Exotic Dancers will not survive intact, if transported in such a container.
|
|
|
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 04:08:00 -
[71]
A Way To Detect Cloaked Ships Without Destroying Cloaking Completely
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 11:32:00 -
[72]
Recently I thought of a different suggestion, which I wrote up elsewhere. Basically:
- Give standard cloaks cap usage
- Give stealthbombers bonuses to avoid this
- The cap usage is proportion to the ship's sig radius
- Cap recharge stops when you cloak
|
Burn Mac
Minmatar
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 13:56:00 -
[73]
I disagree the problem isnt people cloaking its people being able to check local all the time, remove local and this whouldnt be a problem as a pilgrim whould ruin that raven pilots day.
|
Junmar
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 14:06:00 -
[74]
I dont support this idea, but perhaps some sort of cloaking sensor array could be developed for POS's that would give a general idea of where a cloaked ship might be in a system (like around the moon of the 7th planet). Something that allows people to find the AFK player, but doesnt make it easy.
MY idea: if you are online but afk, you should have some risk just as if you are sleeping in a park in NYC with money hanging out of your pocket. 
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:21:00 -
[75]
Same old, same old.
Cov-Ops cloak = completely cloaked.
Improved T2 = Sig-res reduced to 0.5%. Ship is not *VISIBLY* removed from space. If you're close enough to see it you can move toward it (bear in mind that a BS is difficult to see at 40km), but it's not on your overview until 'decloaked'.
Standard T1 = Sigres reduced to 0.5 - 10% (dependant upon meta level), ship not visibly removed from space, only overview.
Ships designed for stealth (Bombers, Cov-Ops, Recons, Black ops, Blockade runners) would always be fully cloaked regardless.
|
yani dumyat
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 13:21:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
having the 15-minute aggro timer apply to 0.0 ratting to prevent farmers using ctrl-q instead.
^^ this
Had some farmers recently operating out of a cloaked carrier in a deep safe spot and despite a number of efforts they are virtually impossible to catch  I'm all for a bit of ninja ratting or plexing but for a group to be able to do this every day in the depths of enemy space with near 100% invulnerability is kinda wrong.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
If in doubt then all is good
If not in doubt then ask yourself harder questions |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:43:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 10/12/2008 15:43:00
rat aggro w/o fixing cloaking means everyone will use the cloak if they already arnt, not a v good idea. All the "cloaking's already nerfed arguments" are sort of silly considering most of the draw backs they are mentioning only come into play once you're COMPLETLY INVULNERABLE.
Problems I see:
1. Cloaks are one size fits all, what cloaks my stealthbomber can cloak Shrike's titan
2. Cloaking drawbacks on standard ships have detrimental effects to PVP but which do not translate to fighting NPCs.
3. Non spec ops ships (cov ops, black ops, recons, etc. simply by saying anything that can use a black ops jump portal) can cloak indefinatly, from downtime to downtime if they wanted to.
Solutions that seem obvious:
1. Make ship-class sized cloaks.
2. Change the scan resolution delay to a ROF penalty.
3. As Scagga mentioned, add a slight cap drain to cloaks and disable cap regen for cloaked ships.
And while not directly related, getting rid of local and bacon cant hurt.
---
Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 17:06:00 -
[78]
NO
OP Should be shot/banned for using BACON
OP Should go back to WoW if he want's to play an easier game.
Epic Fail.
Learn to play the game and tackle and stop being a crybaby.
bloody exploiters
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 17:13:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 10/12/2008 17:13:45
This:
"I disagree the problem isnt people cloaking its people being able to check local all the time, remove local and this whouldnt be a problem as a pilgrim whould ruin that raven pilots day."
Nerfing cloak at the current state of power-block 0.0 reality would be plain wrong.
Cloaked carriers operating inside deep 0.0 ? Very good. It just shows us clearly that no other
existence in 0.0 is possible. Either you have a 100 cap blob or you use cloaks to rat, do guerilla etc.
"Ratting raven, in our own space, alerted by BACON warps to safe, cloaks and smacks on local. "
HUN I know you can do better than making an issue of farming ravens. They are no real PvPer so why you bothering about them ? It sounds more like a desperate wish to grief a nullity.
|
Ackuula
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 18:43:00 -
[80]
NO to any cloaking nerf till they give me someplace else to hide other than a station.
This game just absolutlely screams for LO (Low Observability)
There should be dozens if not hundreds of places to hide in any system that can't be probed out (except by shear luck) and would require some effort with the good o'l Mark 1 eyeball scanner. Once they add those in the game then we can start talking about putting some heavy restrictions on cloaks.
It is more than over due as an option in the game.
Examples of LO
Hiding in massive asteroid belts (think 10-20x times the size of the current ice belts) or near wrecks, not scanable due to clutter
Close orbits to stars where background noise drowns out sginals.
Gas clouds that reduce grid so that visibility on the overview is measured in tens of kilometers not hundreds.
Powerdown modes that reduce signitures to near zero.
Passive and active scanning modes.
Local be corp/alliance intel based rather than 100% ICU based.
Anchorable probes to provide intel to above LOCAL, but can be passive/active as well as discovered and destroyed. Different kinds should last on par with standards cans and/or anchorable kinds, that may or may not need fuel.
Nerfing cloaks without adding some element to replace it is just catering to the carebears that can't be bothered to properly defend their little piece of 0.0
|
|
|
Finawin
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 22:37:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Finawin on 11/12/2008 22:37:09
I see lots of babies throwing fits because a single person is in their system they're too noob to hunt down.
The problem isn't with cloaking, seeing as you take a huge hit on having one installed, it's with you.
|
attitude man
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 23:49:00 -
[82]
if they bring the nano back, who care about cloak ****t
|
Jon Malkovich
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 02:42:00 -
[83]
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.
how did this idiot get elected CSM?
|
Mikhale Romanov
Black Hats Delta
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 07:26:00 -
[84]
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.
So.. you would make the Blackops ships even worse? Did you think when you posted? I thought the CSM members would make a bit more sense when they proposed ideas. Please ruin my Blackops more!!
ZOMG Communism! |
Solomon XI
Hoist The Colors.
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 11:11:00 -
[85]
Cloaking is fine. I am not going to support this.
|
Synthia Sin
Amarr
Lilith Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 12:17:00 -
[86]
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.
If it's YOUR space, why aren't you THERE?
If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.Emma Goldman |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 14:06:00 -
[87]
Nerf afk cloakers and cloak ratters.
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 14:09:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Synthia Sin
If it's YOUR space, why aren't you THERE?
He is there , the point is that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything other than staying in local against a cloak user.
Or if there is then pls write down ,how could you kill a cloak farmer which warps to safespot asap you enter system and cloaks.
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 14:32:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Synthia Sin
If it's YOUR space, why aren't you THERE?
He is there , the point is that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything other than staying in local against a cloak user.
Or if there is then pls write down ,how could you kill a cloak farmer which warps to safespot asap you enter system and cloaks.
OMFG!11! We cannot lock down an entire solar system!1!1 The game is unbalanced!1!1
If someone takes the risk of coming into your space and manages to kill your rats more power to him. If you don't want him to hunt rats in your space you must make sure you kill them first. Boring to guard belts? Hell yeah, but that's the price you pay for wanting to get the bugger.
This sounds to me like a bunch of whiners whining over something quite insignificant....
|
Janu Hull
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 16:29:00 -
[90]
No vote here. I rely on cloaks to move my capital ship. Find a nice quiet system, pop the cyno, warp the carrier around to a mid point safe, either pre-set or set up on the fly, then wait for the cyno ship to get to the next system.
There are more applications of cloaking affected than simply cuckholded PvPers screaming for farmer kills. I think this has more to do with a ganker's sense of entitlement than any flaw in the module itself.
I've been saved by cloaks, and I've been burned by cloakers. I wouldn't trade either experience for a whining ganker's appeasement.
In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
|
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 17:14:00 -
[91]
THIS
Originally by: Ackuula
...
This game just absolutlely screams for LO (Low Observability)
CCP read this:
Originally by: Ackuula
...
Examples of LO
Hiding in massive asteroid belts (think 10-20x times the size of the current ice belts) or near wrecks, not scanable due to clutter
Close orbits to stars where background noise drowns out sginals.
Gas clouds that reduce grid so that visibility on the overview is measured in tens of kilometers not hundreds.
Powerdown modes that reduce signitures to near zero.
Passive and active scanning modes.
Local be corp/alliance intel based rather than 100% ICU based.
Anchorable probes to provide intel to above LOCAL, but can be passive/active as well as discovered and destroyed. Different kinds should last on par with standards cans and/or anchorable kinds, that may or may not need fuel.
Current mechanics for hiding/scanning are just too simple, too deterministic. Omnipotent all seeing "local" ?? , just a lol. If played right nobody has to fight/die in eve. Solar systems are primitive and boring arenas without feeling of real vast and dark space.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 17:27:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Jon Malkovich
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.
how did this idiot get elected CSM?
I didn't vote for him...
Idiots multiply like wabbits.
|
Idaeus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 22:52:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Jon Malkovich
how did this idiot get elected CSM?
OP was posted almost seven months ago (note the mention of BACON, which was broken with the logserver change). Things can change in that period of time.
|
Al Drevika
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 05:35:00 -
[94]
Emphatic no. The cloaked ship can't do anything to you, other than annoy you. Suck it up. There's bigger problems and balance issues to address than a PVPer that can't find a smacktalker or someone who wants to AFK mine in low/nullsec. Please.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 12:12:00 -
[95]
cloack panelty
new:
-90% velocity of fof missiles.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.01.03 13:17:00 -
[96]
Big NO vote for this.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Seiji Hannah
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 19:44:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Seiji Hannah on 04/01/2009 19:44:25
/Signed
Non CoverOps cloaking devices could be changed to lower your signature radius enough not to show up on grid, but still be probable given enough persistance. |
Kaya Divine
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.04 19:58:00 -
[98]
Remove local as tool. If players don`t want to be present in local let them have that option.
Cloaking is fine, to whine that your gang can`t kill some lonely PvE guy/girl is just sad. I didn`t know that there are so desperate corporations, which can only improve theirs k/d ratio by killing PvE fited ships. Sad.
I consulted moralists to learn how to appear philosophers to find out what to think and novelists to see what I could get away with and in the end it all came down to one principle:win or die. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |