EVE Search - FW (CLOAKING ISSUE) The Height of Civility

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

FW (CLOAKING ISSUE) The Height of Civility

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:23:00 - [1] It appears the excellent and most talented developers known to the 21st century have made a decision that I am currently in disagreement with. It is an awful shame. It has come to my attention, causing much distress and heartache, that my favourite vessels, within this ultimate utopia of audio and video pleasure that we all call Eve-Online, have been removed from play when one happens to be enlisted in factional warfare AND in an enemy faction's area of sovereignty that happens to be awarded the security status of 0.5 or above. I can only imagine this is a horrendous oversight and as we speak the handsome and beautiful men and women of CCP are working overtime to put it right. No? Surely this couldn't be by design!! I have to pause to consider this... I don't believe it could be possible that the Olympians in Iceland who spend every waking hour seeing to our needs could have included this mechanic on purpose! This is just gut-wrenchingly awful for me as I am a recon specialist. Just to put this into perspective, the following is a list of ships designed to be cloaked. Ships that you can no longer utilize a cloak on if you happen to be enlisted in FW and in an enemy Militia's high sec system: COV OPS Anathema Buzzard Cheetah Helios STEALTH BOMBERS Hound Manticore Nemesis Purifier FORCE RECONS Arazu Falcon Pilgrim Rapier COMBAT RECONS Curse Huginn Lachesis Rook BLACK OPS Panther Redeemer Sin Widow 20 ships have been effectively removed from the game in High Sec if you are enlisted in FW. Tragedy. All those skill points, all that training time. Gone. My heart weeps, for I love this game so. Unfortunately, due to this design flaw, it is impossible to scout inside enemy territory, rendering covert ops vessels completely useless. I believe this has the side effect of forcing people into using 'alts' (yuk, I hate that word) to fish for information. Alts that their enemy are unable to do ANYTHING about. Free from persecution, these alts can scout in plain sight and the enemy cannot remove them by force, despite the fact that they are clearly working for the other team. I am pretty confident that this is an unintended consequence of the glorious developers of Eve-Online being just way too smart and good looking. It sure would be nice if ya'll would read this with an open mind and consider reversing this decision so that those who have made a career of specializing in cloaked vessels might enjoy the game. Thank you in advance for your kind understanding and the willingness to keep this thread alive so that the entire community can part with their two cents. Kind and heartfelt regards Mattduk P.S. To the guy who asked if Combat Recons were designed to use cloaks... All I can say is: Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
Mallikanth Minmatar Fallem Angels	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:26:00 - [2] Edited by: Mallikanth on 15/07/2008 14:26:25 Now you'll get done for re-opening a locked thread [EDIT] And I agree it's madness stopping cloaked ships in enemy high sec.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:26:00 - [3] Probably. All hail little ******, eh? Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:28:00 - [4] And why is this an issue for you? Also combat recons aint cloakers. Less whine, more play please. Specially when you hardly know wtf you biatch about. -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Princess Jodi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:30:00 - [5] Not in FW so this does not affect me, but I honestly didn't know that there were rules against Cloaking. I've got to admit that it not only does not make any sense, but its the OPPOSITE of what I would expect. After all, if you are going to go do a Special Op in enemy territory, the FIRST thing you should have is the ability to hide. Taking that away makes no sense. I'm also very concerned about WHY this was done. We've been complaining about AFK cloakers, Alt Cloakers, etc. for years, and nothing has been given to us 0.0 peeps. Now it appears that there has been a way to shut down cloaks when in safe space? Pray Tell: Why does the NPC's get to have something to protect their empires that the players cannot also have? I've been uncloaked by Concord before when I accidentally jumped into safe space with an agression timer still on. But for FW, the very idea is to raid/conquer enemy space. Sorry, but denying cloaking in FW is just lame.
Siberys	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:30:00 - [6] Edited by: Siberys on 15/07/2008 14:31:05 Hmm... well, I'll remember I won't have to train cloaking for my FW curse in 50 days... Though that is a damn shame. Cloaking is what those ships were literally designed to do, so how the heck did they remove it for ships in FW? Anyway, all for the Emperor!
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:31:00 - [7] Originally by: Princess Jodi Not in FW so this does not affect me, but I honestly didn't know that there were rules against Cloaking. I've got to admit that it not only does not make any sense, but its the OPPOSITE of what I would expect. After all, if you are going to go do a Special Op in enemy territory, the FIRST thing you should have is the ability to hide. Taking that away makes no sense. I'm also very concerned about WHY this was done. We've been complaining about AFK cloakers, Alt Cloakers, etc. for years, and nothing has been given to us 0.0 peeps. Now it appears that there has been a way to shut down cloaks when in safe space? Pray Tell: Why does the NPC's get to have something to protect their empires that the players cannot also have? I've been uncloaked by Concord before when I accidentally jumped into safe space with an agression timer still on. But for FW, the very idea is to raid/conquer enemy space. Sorry, but denying cloaking in FW is just lame. Maybe something to do with cloaking and faction navy spawns. -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Firkragg Blue Labs Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:35:00 - [8] dammit can we make one thing clear Combat recons are not meant to cloak so stop complaining that they arent able to in hostile space feel free to complain about force recons though
randomindyalt Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:37:00 - [9] Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec"
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:37:00 - [10] Combat recons really aren't meant to use cloaking. Putting a cloak on them is like putting a cloak on a heavy assault ship, or on just about any other non-cloaking ship. As for cloaking, as far as I know you have never been able to use cloaking to avoid NPC navy/police ships, even before FW. --------------- I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Shintai And why is this an issue for you? Also combat recons aint cloakers. Less whine, more play please. Specially when you hardly know wtf you biatch about. 1) I disagree. I feel that while the combat recons are unable to warp cloaked, they are perfect vessels for the Improved Cloaking Device II. They are pretty much useless in any other capacity. 2) I'm playing right now, working on Cosmos missions to increase our standings towards Minmatar Republic, not that this is any of your business, but you seem to need satisfying, so I obliged. 3) I feel I know plenty about recons, as for the past year I have flown pretty much nothing else but recons in deployments deep behind enemy lines on behalf of BOB, against the enemies of BOB. Universal Army used to be in INTERDICTION and had two very successful campaigns against the Goons and their allies in both Feythabolis and Delve. ... oh, and I am not 'biatching', that was the other thread, rememeber? Matt Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
randomindyalt Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:41:00 - [12] Originally by: Hannobaal As for cloaking, as far as I know you have never been able to use cloaking to avoid NPC navy/police ships, even before FW. Yup, a -10 dude can't jump into a 0.5 and cloak, why should the FW guys.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:43:00 - [13] Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
Napro Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:45:00 - [14] Edited by: Napro on 15/07/2008 14:45:03 Just quit like I'm doing. There'll be plenty of suckers...err loyal players... to keep the game afloat until they get the bugs out of FW in about 6months
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:46:00 - [15] So where is the whine over you cant cloak in your Drake, Raven etc etc etc.... -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Squably Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Napro Edited by: Napro on 15/07/2008 14:45:03 Just quit like I'm doing. There'll be plenty of suckers...err loyal players... to keep the game afloat until they get the bugs out of FW in about 6months Go back to WOW tyvm Signature removed. Please do not imply profanity in your signature. Navigator
Napro Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:48:00 - [17] Originally by: Squably Originally by: Napro Edited by: Napro on 15/07/2008 14:45:03 Just quit like I'm doing. There'll be plenty of suckers...err loyal players... to keep the game afloat until they get the bugs out of FW in about 6months Go back to WOW tyvm Thanks, I'll give it a try. Enjoy your 90 bucks spent on beta software. I'll be back around January
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:48:00 - [18] While I don't really care about FW one way or another, this cloaking thing is somewhat surprising. Isn't the WHOLE POINT of covert ops and recons to sneak behind enemy lines and gather intel? What about recons description as "the U-boats of eve" that sneak around and gank unsuspecting victims? I thought that covops were what CCP always intended for intel gathering... but I guess it was the npc corp alt that is the true intended scout.
Siberys	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:48:00 - [19] Originally by: Napro Edited by: Napro on 15/07/2008 14:46:44 Edited by: Napro on 15/07/2008 14:45:03 Just quit like I'm doing. There'll be plenty of suckers...err loyal players... to keep the game afloat until they get the bugs out of FW in about 6months Return to the depths of WoW from whence ye came!
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:50:00 - [20] Edited by: Shintai on 15/07/2008 14:50:33 Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt A stealth bomber cant warp cloaked either. And in any case, any ship can cloak. So its just an endless argue about why something cant cloak. And nomatter how you put it. A combat recon aint a cloaker by nature. Its just as much a cloaker as a Drake or Raven is. -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Napro Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:51:00 - [21] That's 2 recommendations for WoW. I'm signing up for a trial now. I hear it's past the beta stage, too, so it already has FW beat
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:52:00 - [22] Combat recons are exactly what the title says. A recon ship that is capable of reasonable defensive combat and tanking therefore they do not need to cloak. Fitting a cloak to one is like fitting a cloak to a standard BS. The cloaking recon ship cloaks simply because it cannot sustain a tank for longer than it takes to cloak and remove itself from the line of fire, in the same way as the Covops, they are paper thin and won't last long in combat. They are mainly designed to warp in virtually undetected and set up a cyno. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:52:00 - [23] Originally by: Napro That's 2 recommendations for WoW. I'm signing up for a trial now. I hear it's past the beta stage, too, so it already has FW beat That's the 2nd time you compared Eve to a beta... You do know there's infinitely more things to do in Eve outside of FW, right? I'd tell you to try out any of the fabulous things the universe has to offer, but on second thought you might actually be better off in Wow... they spoon feed you the content there so you dont have to cry about creating it yourself.
randomindyalt Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:53:00 - [24] Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt No worries, I didn't check if any other ships (besides the bombers) carry this though. IÆm not sure if I agree with your point though, as it's already been said, pilots that are flagged by a faction navy are decloaked, whether they're in FW or not. So you are in fact asking for outlaws to have the ability to operate in 0.5 and upwards.
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:54:00 - [25] Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt Almost all ships in the game are "able to cloak". Combat recons have absolutely no bonuses related to cloaking whatsoever. Not a single one. Cloaks on them work in the exact same way as on any other normal ship in every aspect. --------------- I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:55:00 - [26] Enough WOW horse**** please guys. Remain on topic. This is a discussion with regards to the unfavourable (IMHO) mechanic that prevents individuals in a legal war from utilizing cloaks on 20 ships designed to benefit from a cloak, and on all the additional ships beyond that. Thank you. Matt Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
randomindyalt Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.15 14:56:00 - [27] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Combat recons are exactly what the title says. A recon ship that is capable of reasonable defensive combat and tanking therefore they do not need to cloak. Fitting a cloak to one is like fitting a cloak to a standard BS. The cloaking recon ship cloaks simply because it cannot sustain a tank for longer than it takes to cloak and remove itself from the line of fire, in the same way as the Covops, they are paper thin and won't last long in combat. They are mainly designed to warp in virtually undetected and set up a cyno. There is no more "tank" on my Rook as on my Falcon, plus combat recons have the same cloaking bonus as stealth bombers.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 15:03:00 - [28] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt Almost all ships in the game are "able to cloak". Combat recons have absolutely no bonuses related to cloaking whatsoever. Not a single one. Cloaks on them work in the exact same way as on any other normal ship in every aspect. wrong. Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec". You even quoted it, ya doofus. This means that when decloaking there is a shorter delay on your ability to lock a target. The combat recon does not suffer the same penalty as a HAC would from fitting an Improved Cloaking Device II. The Stealth Bomber has the same attibute as the Combat Recon. Compare them. If you look in the item database you will see the same attribute on both the stealth bomber and the combat recon. "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Can we finally agree that the Combat Recon has a bonus attribute that means it is better suited to cloaking? If you cannot agree, please offer some evidence to support your statements, instead of blindly spewing forth words. Kind regards Mattduk Jump Bridges? Shit idea.
Hannobaal Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.15 15:14:00 - [29] Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt Almost all ships in the game are "able to cloak". Combat recons have absolutely no bonuses related to cloaking whatsoever. Not a single one. Cloaks on them work in the exact same way as on any other normal ship in every aspect. wrong. Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec". You even quoted it, ya doofus. This means that when decloaking there is a shorter delay on your ability to lock a target. Actually that's not what means at all. It means that when you uncloak you can recloak 5 seconds later instead of waiting 30 seconds. I didn't think this applied to combat recons, but after testing just now in game it apprently does. So, I stand corrected. In that one aspect, combat recons are different for cloaking. The targeting delay is the same as for all other ships though. --------------- I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army	Posted - 2008.07.15 15:18:00 - [30] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Mattduk Originally by: randomindyalt Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec" Thank you randomindyalt. Maybe people are getting confused between being ABLE TO CLOAK and being ABLE TO WARP CLOAKED. Matt Almost all ships in the game are "able to cloak". Combat recons have absolutely no bonuses related to cloaking whatsoever. Not a single one. Cloaks on them work in the exact same way as on any other normal ship in every aspect. wrong. Rook info in the item database "covertopsstealthbombercloakmoduledelay 5.00 sec". You even quoted it, ya doofus. This means that when decloaking there is a shorter delay on your ability to lock a target. Actually that's not what means at all. It means that when you uncloak you can recloak 5 seconds later instead of waiting 30 seconds. I didn't think this applied to combat recons, but after testing just now in game it apprently does. So, I stand corrected. In that one aspect, combat recons are different for cloaking. The targeting delay is the same as for all other ships though. Ah yes, you are right. My bad. I forget that I fit rigs to my combat recons to combat the locking delay. But, back to the point, now that we know for a fact that Combat Recons have a bonus to cloaking that other ships do not, let's move forward with the argument that cloaking should be allowed in factional warfare. As far as I understand it, FW is basically the same as a concord sanctioned war, just on a much larger scale. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Cheers Matt Jump Bridges? Shit idea.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.