| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
   |
Posted - 2008.11.03 03:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kittamaru on 03/11/2008 03:49:00
Problem: AFK Perma-Cloaking kinda sucks... and the fact that cloaking is 100% uncounterable is kind of stupid.
Solution: Two modules
Basic Module - Pinger - Gives a range and bearing to any cloaked vessel on the grid, with a +/- 20 degree variance.
Fitting Reqs - similar to an ECM moule
Activation cost - 50 cap
Duration - 60 seconds
Effect - Tactical Display is brought up with three coloured markers (Red, Blue, Green). Red marks the X axis, Blue marks the Y axis, and Green marks the Z axis. These appear and update at the END of the module duration.
Okay, the basic idea is this - you activate the module, which sends out a ping. After the duration time has run it's course, the three indicators come up on the 3 axis on the tactical overlay. You then know which direction to travel on the x, y, and z axis to find the target. HOWEVER, the 15 degree variance means you are not likely to actually find them this way. Necessitating the use of the next module:
Advanced Module - Electromagnetic Field Pickup - Gives a range and bearing to a cloaked vessel within 25km (number needs tweaked) with a 1 degree variance.
Fitting Reqs - similar to an ECM moule
Activation cost - 25 cap
Duration - 30 seconds
Effect - Tactical Display is brought up with three coloured markers (Red, Blue, Green). Red marks the X axis, Blue marks the Y axis, and Green marks the Z axis. These appear and update at the END of the module duration.
This is much like the basic edition, but with MUCH shorter range and much better accuracy.
New skill for this: - Electromagnetic Field Detector Operation
Rank: 7
Pre Reqs - High electronics, high engineering skills, decent survey skills
Effect - 15% reduction to duration of EM Detectors per level.
These two modules can be used to good effect to detect any cloaked ship on grid using teamwork and patience. Thing is, any competent, AWARE cov ops pilot (or anyone with a pulse and a cloak) can avoid being detected by simply moving.
Now, you may notice there is a distinct LACK of off-grid detection - that would be correct. That, I believe, should be reserved for either
A) A brand new ship class
B) A POS module
C) A station upgrade
|
Ashley Thomas
Kiith Paktu
Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 04:09:00 -
[2]
cloak whine thread #5 as of 11/1/08
btw, bad idea
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 04:11:00 -
[3]
Poor response, l2post.
Explain how you believe it is a bad idea.
|
Infinion
Caldari
Retribution Enterprises
Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 04:13:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Infinion on 03/11/2008 04:14:34
 Originally by: Ashley Thomas
cloak whine thread #5 as of 11/1/08
btw, bad idea
hahaha, you're really cracking down on every cloak suggestion thread
I for one like the pinger module, it wouldn't be the worst thing to consider adding
|
Ashley Thomas
Kiith Paktu
Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 04:19:00 -
[5]
anything that nerfs covert ops is a bad thing, or nerfs the cloak on bombers/recons/black ops...
nerf the cloak and you pretty much kill the ship class.
only idea i like: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=912737
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 05:03:00 -
[6]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 03/11/2008 05:04:38
Luckily the devs are not stupid to introduce a new module without extensive testing.
Scams compilation |
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 05:31:00 -
[7]
But how would this destroy cloaking? ANYONE that is paying attention would be immune to it.
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 05:55:00 -
[8]
Initial Post updated
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 06:28:00 -
[9]
Let me give a reason on this -
With my idea, any ship with bonuses to cloaks (cov ops, stealth bombers, etc) can EASILY avoid detection.
How?
Well, cov ops can simply warp... the others can just maneuver out of the way.
With my idea, you have to get into the 2500 meter range to force-decloak the vessel. This means that, with the duration of the scanners and their deviation, you have PLENTY of time (assuming you are actively at the helm of your ship) to get the hell out of dodge should they attempt to find you. Remember, they have to fly INTO you.
The people searching you are fighting against:
Not having a direct line to follow (only a 90% accurate set of bearings)
Not being able to see you
Having to wait for the scan to complete every cycle as they are moving
The cloaked ship being able to move
The cloaked ship being able to SEE them
Not being able to lock the cloaked ship after they decloak them (due to the resolution penalty)
The cloaked ship is having to contend with:
The chance of actually, possibly being found by a determined group
Not being able to simply cloak and go to bed / eat / go to work / have sex / et al
|
Ashley Thomas
Kiith Paktu
Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 14:08:00 -
[10]
chances of survival already suck in 0.0 gatecamps, this just drops the chances to 0
|
|
|
eliminator2
Gallente
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 14:14:00 -
[11]
i actually like this idea its not to harsh on cov ops and its allso not to fail for use
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 22:22:00 -
[12]
Ashley, you're trolling again...
A large bubble camp or interdictor camp or heavy interdictor camp SHOULD be very difficult to evade. My mechanic would have ZERO effect on that - if your cov ops / stealth bomber / recon ship can't cloak and run towards the edge of the bubble in the span of 15 seconds, then you deserve to die. Period. Considering, you know, 15 seconds is the time it would take for the anti-cloaker to get a bearing and align towards it...
Then there is the fact that the bearing only relates to the last known position... so as long as you're MOVING you should be able to evade detection...
|
Ocih
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 22:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ocih on 03/11/2008 22:37:49
Having AFK cloaked, I can say this ... won't work.
- Jump in to sys, warp to random planet, bookmark along the way.
- Warp to random planet, bookmark along the way.
- Warp to Bookmark 1.
- Warp to Bookmark 2, create bookmark from two random points in space.
- Warp to 3rd bookmark, point ship up, down or on any angle away from any boddies.
- Set max speed, leave cloaked, go to work for 12 hrs.
Good luck finding me based on my last location.
- Add on: There is a down side. When enemies see me in fleets, I get my ass handed to me. They hate my ever loving guts.
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 22:43:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Kittamaru on 03/11/2008 22:43:31
Oh, you can be found by a very determined group at max speed (especially if they have the related skills to lvl 5, cutting the scan time from 30 seconds down to 7.5 seconds) but my point is it will be difficult.
If you're moving, kudos to you. I'm more worried about the people that just sit there stationary in space doing nothing all day long... or the warp+cloak+logoff macro-ravens.
Edit-
And even if this may not work well to find active cloakers... or at least moving ones... isn't that a bonus? And given that it gives a bearing, a smart pinger will quickly realize the bearing is the same and simply come up on you from behind.
|
Ocih
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 22:55:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kittamaru
Edited by: Kittamaru on 03/11/2008 22:43:31
Oh, you can be found by a very determined group at max speed (especially if they have the related skills to lvl 5, cutting the scan time from 30 seconds down to 7.5 seconds) but my point is it will be difficult.
If you're moving, kudos to you. I'm more worried about the people that just sit there stationary in space doing nothing all day long... or the warp+cloak+logoff macro-ravens.
Edit-
And even if this may not work well to find active cloakers... or at least moving ones... isn't that a bonus? And given that it gives a bearing, a smart pinger will quickly realize the bearing is the same and simply come up on you from behind.
I can see what you mean. Ping from loc, move down 2.5 km, not only can you tell where I am but how fast I am going. Not to give any trade secrets away, I won't add more and you are right. It will be difficult to catch me. Being a self confessed AFK cloaker, I can say I have no issue with your idea.. that should say something. But as said, sure.. good Idea. |
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 23:08:00 -
[16]
*BUMP*
|
Daevonar
Minmatar
Starfish Operating Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 23:35:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Daevonar on 04/11/2008 23:38:59
If you add some kind of skill based bonus for the cloaker to counter the counter.... that would be good. So at low skill levels (cloaking) and high skill levels (cloaking counter) you have a very good chance of finding them, but a high skill cloaker vs a low skill cloak hunter will find it easy to evade detection.
Also has the advantage that people who aren't really training to use a cloak properly, but just think it'll be a cool thing to have will have a harder time of it than those who dedicate their training time to using a cloak effectively.
TBH I'm not sure AFK cloaking is that bad... I mean, they are afk... doing nothing to you and nothing for themselves.
It's more that every man and his dog seems to be able to hide out right in front of your station whenever they like.
Dae.
|
Renee Alexis
Luminous Love Brewery
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 23:37:00 -
[18]
I'd only agree with this if the warfare functioned similar to sub warfare in WW2. But this game is not WW2, and that module sounds like something akin to a Destroyer vessel in WW2. Cloaked ships have very few things going for them as it stands, no need to make the sad panda feel even sadder.
_____________________________________
|
Korovyov
Luminous Love Brewery
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 23:39:00 -
[19]
Make stealth bombers 1-shot anything smaller than a tier 3 battleship and I will agree to this.
--=--=-- end of post --=--=--
got booze? |
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 23:48:00 -
[20]
I also agree that Stealth Bombers need a serious boost... I think 3x Citadel Torps with a large bonus to explosion velocity and explosion radius.
And this system doesn't gimp active, aware, and skilled cloak pilots. Only idiots that go AWOL for long periods of time.
|
|
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 05:03:00 -
[21]
The only reason you even know someone is in system is because of the local channel. If you didn't see them in the local channel, you would not know they were there and you would not be coming to this forum and crying about it.
Is there any time this has bothered you outside of seeing someone in the local channel that you cant pick up on d-scan? Show me the loss mail from when you were killed by a cloaking device and maybe this type of crying will carry merit.
Stealth bombers are mean SOB's if you know how to fly one. They are not nearly as easy to fly as say... interceptors and I really appreciate that there is a class of ship in Eve were a talented gamer can tromp all over those who rely on SP. I do think that bombs cost too much and are way too slow. They may not be too slow post speed nerf, we shall see.
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 06:56:00 -
[22]
I agree that SB's need to be ships of skill... but I also believe they should be able to do more than one-volley a frigate. I think a flight of stealth bombers (a squad of 5) should be able to severely damage, if not cripple, a battleship. Maybe not destroy it, but it should be DEEP into hull.
BC's should just pop against a wing of 5 SB's
Cruisers should barely escape IF they are moving without a MWD sig radius penalty against 5 sb's
Dessies and Frigates should have a decent chance to survive IF the SB's fit for Citadels. If fit for Cruises, they should be screwed.
I honestly think, to be frank, Stealth Bombers should be anti-capital ships. 3x Citadel launchers, 5x bonus to damage, 10x penalty to Rate of Fire, 2.5x bonus to sig radius. This would make them a serious threat to cap ships in large numbers if they don't have anti-cloak ships to find them.
As a compromise -
Cov Ops cloaks should, addmitedly, be much harder to find than normal cloaks. Perhaps make that require a time modifier (T1 cloak has a .5 modifier, T2 has a 1, Cov Ops has a 2 or 3?) to the aquisition times of the "ping" module to the ship?
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 07:11:00 -
[23]
hmm not exactly happy with it but probably best one I've heard so far, maybe better than what get actually implemented (they will probably go for a more simple solution).
/signed I guess
I guess it would reward cloakers who are actually at their keyboard as they would be able to maneuver (albeit slowly to try and dodge the enemy while an afk person would just move in 1 direction allowing you to find their location.
However i think that any cloaker ships should be immune to this, afk cloaking in the system then jumping out and catching you is the entire point of having them.
Possibly ecm strength based? would help bs's and allow the passive eccm module to give you some resistance to this. But then it would make catching cloaked carriers/titans very hard.
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls |
Renee Alexis
Luminous Love Brewery
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 07:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Kittamaru
I think a flight of stealth bombers (a squad of 5) should be able to severely damage, if not cripple, a battleship. Maybe not destroy it, but it should be DEEP into hull.
BC's should just pop against a wing of 5 SB's
Cruisers should barely escape IF they are moving without a MWD sig radius penalty against 5 sb's
Dessies and Frigates should have a decent chance to survive IF the SB's fit for Citadels. If fit for Cruises, they should be screwed.
I honestly think, to be frank, Stealth Bombers should be anti-capital ships. 3x Citadel launchers, 5x bonus to damage, 10x penalty to Rate of Fire, 2.5x bonus to sig radius. This would make them a serious threat to cap ships in large numbers if they don't have anti-cloak ships to find them.
Well, as had been said, I don't see why we need to have an even easier way to discover cloaked ships in the first place if they aren't rampaging through systems, slaughtering more players than your average small-man gank fleet.
It's similar to saying that a cloaked assassin class in any other MMO should have their stealth nerfed simply because they can go AFK while stealthed and that scares people. So? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
And that is why I mentioned World War 2. You're essentially bringing in a viable alternative use for a destroyer (though you only mentioned a module, I think it'd be a fitting specialty for it) similar to how they were utilized in WW2 naval task forces. I have no problems with that. I think it'd rock.
However, our poor stealth bomber does not have the capability of a skilled submarine captain - in fact, as you're suggesting, they wouldn't be able to pop anything aside from ships their own class or one small step above them. Certainly balance is the key, but alternatively you could give them enough damage to insta-pop a cruiser or tier 1 battleship solo but have a super-tremendous fire rate nerf (also similar to torpedo reloading times back then, hehe) to prevent one stealth bomber from smacking an entire fleet.
Go in, kancho! ...go silent and run like hell.
I personally am all for your idea, but it must also include the ability to basically go the full nine yards: Silent Hunter series meets EVE-Online, essentially.
_____________________________________
|
Memorya
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 07:32:00 -
[25]
why all complain about AFK cloaked ships ..?? nothing is wrong the way it is ! ...
if i want to make someone nervous i don't need a cloaked ship .. i can warp to a safe spot with my interceptor and go in X direction full speed ....
find a ship traveling 7.000 m/s ... no way ...
cloak is fine ... AFK is the problem ..
Metal lives forever !! |
Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 08:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kittamaru
But how would this destroy cloaking? ANYONE that is paying attention would be immune to it.
My reading of this idea is that it is a same-grid-only detection, so it's mostly going to be useful in gate ganking operations, which _would_ be nice for 0.0 system defense against aggressors trying to set up for an overnight AFK snooze, or scouts, BUT it would be a terrible disadvantage for people trying to make their way through pirate gate camps in anything other than very fast moving cloaked ships.
I can't sign this idea, it would have almost zero impact on the most broken aspects of cloak use, and a huge impact on people that are actually using the cloak actively.
Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot! |
doobey
Minmatar
Black Plague.
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 09:06:00 -
[27]
An afk cloaker is only a problem for someone that wants to rat in o.o. Allowing a Recon/Cov ops/Bomber/Blackops to be found is silly, defeats the purpose of the ship class. A Bomber/Black ops can't cloak whilst warping so a competent ratter will pick it up on scan. The only problem would be a recon, but fitting a neut will fix that problem. TBH if you can't counter a single cloaker in system then you don't belong in 0.0. Learn to use you scanner, fit a neut and stop worrying about it.
|
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 11:07:00 -
[28]
ships with cloak bonus (covert-ops, recons, stealth bombers and black ops) shouldn't suffer from afk-cloaking, ships not designed to use cloak should consume cap and once the cap is gone the cloak is removed until 'reactivated' (if you have cap). easy solution.
Teh failure of a signature. |
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 13:02:00 -
[29]
Okay, I haven't heard a single viable argument against this... the big complaint is that it makes cloaking useless even on cov ops ships.
It doesn't.
The bearing "pings" at the end of a cycle.
Then it gives the last known position to x degree of accuracy.
If you are at the keyboard and moving, you can simply change direction. Thus when they go to intercept you on the current bearing, you aren't there anymore. As cov-ops and cloak bonused ships don't have a speed penalty, this isn't a problem.
What I don't get is why people think being able to scan out cloaked battleships near gates or even 2 hour afk cloaked cov ops is a problem. The scanner would take almost no time to find the prototype cloak, a fair chunk of time to find a normal T2 Improved cloak, and double or triple the time to find a cov ops cloak. Each one would also affect the accuracy to a degree.
Thus, while a T1 cloak on a battleship may not let you escape no matter what you do (as it shouldn't), a T2 cloak would give you the extra time to align and warp. A cov ops cloak gives you far more time as not only does it take longer for the ping to find you, but it isn't as accurate AND you are far more capable of simply moving out of the way.
An remember - if you're in a safe spot, they need one ship to find your safe spot with the long range scanner (which ruins normal sensor lock ability), one to find a bearing to your ship from that point (which also cannot lock you), and finally a ship to lock you, tackle you, and blow you up. So, at minimum, a two man gang (if you BM and refit)... but if you're at the keyboard and see someone randomly jump out of warp, you can safely assume he's found your cloak spot and soon someone will come in to try to ping you... so just MOVE!
|
Kittamaru
Gallente
Democracy of Klingon Brothers
Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 13:03:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Doc Iridium
Originally by: Kittamaru
But how would this destroy cloaking? ANYONE that is paying attention would be immune to it.
My reading of this idea is that it is a same-grid-only detection, so it's mostly going to be useful in gate ganking operations, which _would_ be nice for 0.0 system defense against aggressors trying to set up for an overnight AFK snooze, or scouts, BUT it would be a terrible disadvantage for people trying to make their way through pirate gate camps in anything other than very fast moving cloaked ships.
I can't sign this idea, it would have almost zero impact on the most broken aspects of cloak use, and a huge impact on people that are actually using the cloak actively.
No, it's system-wide with the long duration module which gives you a warp in point somewhere on grid to a cloaked vessel.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |