| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stigman Zuwadza
Repercussus
RAZOR Alliance
17
   |
Posted - 2012.05.14 04:29:00 -
[61] - Quote
I would of thought that if you were scanning down a cloaky using probes that you would also have combat probes out at the same time, scaling down the AU with the cloaky finding probes, meaning, you would find the ships location almost instantly after decloaking them with the cloaky probes.
If someone is cloaked maybe we could say they've disconnected from the comms network and thus, they would be removed from local and subsequently the cloaker would have no local either. So if the cloaker is there for true reconnaissance then they'll have to fly around to gather intel or hunt for stray targets.
Maybe an additional mod that scrambles their connection to the comms could be used, thus they could gain true stealth if needed (could even be usable everywhere).
I agree that cloakers shouldn't be decloakable (unless you're within 2000m), I think the solution is the introduction of my mod. 
I was there! 
Have a good one. o7 |
Foghail
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 06:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
For some reason it doesn't seem to have updated what i meant by single use - in short they are the only probes that can be launched / active at the same time to give the guy a shot and not completely break cloaking as a whole. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 06:54:00 -
[63] - Quote
As a base to start out, I refer to removing local as setting it to complete delayed mode just like WH space is now.
Ok first of all, afk cloaking is a legitimate tactic to facilitate assemetric warfare in an environment where enemy movement and general position is always available. If you wish to destroy this balance then you must address the whole problem rather than pieces of it; the cry to remove local is so that tactics can evolve past where they are now. Tactics as they stand now are extremely static and will only facilitate the creation of ever larger coalitions and the recycling of the same tactics used in the past, namely outnumber and overwhelm.
Removing local would not only force defenders of large empires to split up and run patrols, but would provide the defenders a great advantage when defending against threats; allowing large resistance fleets to be formed without the enemy knowing the form up location. The defenders (assuming no spies are online) have an inherent advantage of already having a well established intel network, while the roaming gang has to set one up and continually move it to keep up with the position of the fleet. The removal of local would also make it so the cloaker setting up an ambush has to work to see if anyone is active in a particular system and actually strike a target, therefore exposing himself to a potential trap, to achieve the same effect of what they are achieving just by showing up in local now.
So in conclusion the removal of local will change tactics to the extreme, so Foghail, don't talk to me about the inability to adapt and change tactics as the need requires. Now your suggestions.
Foghail wrote:Some other Additions to the probe idea
- 20% to scan cycle time reduction with these probes per level of Sovereignty (i.e. Sov 5 System = 100% Reduction )
- Not Able to be used in W Space
- Limited Run BPC's 5/10/25 (LP Purchase)
- Single Use
- Short burn Duration (est 10 Minutes or 8 - 15 scans and adjustments)
- Range from 64/32/16/8/4/2/1/0.5 AU
-Having anticloaking probes restricted to k-space doesn't make sense, if they are usable in one area they should be universal.
-The limited run idea is good, I can go with that. I would prefer if it was random drops, but thats just the details. I agree that any testing of anticloaking modules or systems should be extremely expensive and limited to begin with.
-The rest is specific to probes and seeing that I do not agree with anticloaking probes on any level I will not comment on it.
The reason I have an issue with anticloaking combat probes is because the ability to scan down a ship in the vastness of space, with a device made specifiacally to blend that ship into its environment is against my personal standards of logic. I'm sorry that I disagree with you on this subject but we must agree to disagree.
My personal idea is make anticloaking tech work in such a way that it doesn't actually change the way that decloaking works (having an object move closer than 2000 meters to you). Using a combination of an active scan module (like an ore scanner) sensor strength and signature resolution vs cloaking device type (covops, improved, etc) sig raduis and pilot actions; the ships ghost image might show up on the grid, this ghost image isn't targetable but can be approached and the pilot is notified that they have been comprimised. This makes it so active hunters have a more difficulty setting up an attack and the ability to use a cloak to safe up or gain intel is not comprimised, due to the relatively short range of the active scanning device.
Could my idea be abused, yeah; is it perfect, no. If you have a suggestion to make it better please bring it to my attention and I'll see how it could work. How can anticloaking probes be abused, how will it be used if there is no removal of local in conjunction with the change? Once you can say with absolute certainty that you system will be the least abused system over everything else that has been suggested please tell me, and try to think objectively. Thank you for your time.
tl;dr Go back and read it, if you're invested this much in the thread then you should have read the whole thing anyway.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
Dead On Arrival Alliance
698
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 10:02:00 -
[64] - Quote
All these suggestions are too complicated, and break something else. Easiest fix to the (debatable issue*) of AFK cloaking is:
Cloak fuel.
A simple, player manufactured item (made from gas found only in lowsec, btw) that you put in your cargo hold (or cloak fuel bay, but that is more complex to implement) that is slowly consumed by an activated cloak module.
Cloak fuel unit size should be balanced approximately so that a covops ship needs to refuel at least once per day.
I think this would add an interesting mechanism for both the cloakee and those chasing him... like a submarine of yesteryear in hostile waters, both parties knew that the sub needs to surface sooner or later somewhere.
* I like the idea of infiltrating enemy territory, and performing guerrilla warfare on intel tasks there, but it shouldn't be possible to do this forever with invulnerability. Having to supply the guerrilla unit could be a fun task in itself.
In the beginning high security space was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
231
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
there is nothing wrong with afk cloaking, just to begin with. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
7434
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 10:15:00 -
[66] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:there is nothing wrong with afk cloaking, just to begin with. Not empty quoting.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 15:31:00 -
[67] - Quote
>Give people a way to detect cloaked ships.
>This is not a nerf to cloaking.
What the hell are you smoking. |
11b Ghost
Fates Unwritten Consortium
SQUEE.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 15:55:00 -
[68] - Quote
The most feasible option would simply be a logout timer for idle players. I've just recently started living in null and I mine, manufacture, PVE, and have been getting into PVP. The reason I'm posting this and not playing is because an AFK cloaker has been stinking up our system for a couple weeks now.
Part of the dynamic that makes EVE a great MMO is that constant element of danger, of never really being safe. As frustrating as it is to be AFK cloak camped I think cloak probes, de-cloak structures or any of the other suggestions would create too much of an imbalance or break something that is working as intended. However, a cloaked camper who's logged in 23/7 is in no way at his keyboard the whole time but can disrupt other players who are. This is an imbalance and the most feasible way to counter it without breaking cloaking or local is to have an idle timer.
I have no problem making sure I have backup when mining or looking over my stern when ratting if there's a neut in system on the hunt but why should he be rewarded when he's not at the keyboard, the reward being the griefing of "carebears" and/or disruption of enemy activity. The argument I seem to hear the most is, "If he's AFK then he's not a threat." Which might seem logical except the fact that a perceived danger can be just as disruptive as a legitimate one. So with this flawed mechanic a player is able to generate the perception of a hostile threat even though they are AFK.
Now the problem, human nature. People will always believe what they want to believe regardless of logic and reason. No matter how deplorable griefing is, people clearly get a kick from it and no matter how wrong they are they will use every last breath arguing the contrary so long as. A - they perceive a benefit from it and B - the system allows it. A key factor to the equation if you will is the classic denigration of the intended victim and by this I mean the "carebear" label. It's an element really reflective of actual warfare in which the aggressor characterizes the victim as being less than human, or sub-human, through whatever label gets the job done. "Carebears" are often the target of griefers even though the ship they're flying was built by someone who decided to "carebear"... it's a great irony really but indicative that "carebearing" is accepted when it benefits the "non-carebear" but regarded with disdain when it does not. This is called a double standard.
So, as is obvious, logic and reason will not sway people from griefing if it is allowed thus it falls on the caretakers of the system to institute change. The most feasible change to address this flawed mechanic without breaking any other mechanic that is working as intended would be an idle timer. Make it so after 30-60 minutes idle the player is disconnected.
Please be respectful in your arguments. If you disagree that's fine, that's what people do. I tried to maintain as much objectivity on the situation as possible while addressing what is clearly a sore point for more players than myself. Just cause one AFK cloaker bothers me doesn't mean CCP should institute sweeping changes but the game should be fun and rewarding for the people that actually play it, not the one's who don't.
tl;dr Don't be lazy, read it or don't, idc. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
234
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 16:31:00 -
[69] - Quote
why should there be no neutrals or afk clokers waiting for some juicy targets appear to hotdrop?
Where targets are, there are hunters, its makes all sense. Why should that be different? There is no reason.
Its not that you are special and have more rights being in some chunk of space than others, no?
Idle timer and logoff is a terrible idea, since afk cloaking wouldnt work anymore. |
L0rdF1end
Sicarius.
When Hippos Attack
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 16:33:00 -
[70] - Quote
Nice write up and very well said.
Only time will tell as to whether CCP decide to do anything about this issue.
I think its probably quite difficult to get stats to backup a proposed change/fix in regards to this specific problem.
How would we go about collecting information to confirm this is a big enough issue for a large enough portion of the player base to warrant a fix?
Purley by moaning on the forum? I don't think that warrants enough or provides official data to back up and warrant any change.
Ideas CCP?
To be honest I think CCP have stayed away from these threads because there are players that argue both sides of this issue.
It would be nice to understand how much CCP beleieve this is an actual issue though and what kind of data they are using to backup any fix proposal. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |