|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.10 06:38:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 10/07/2011 06:46:03 Just allow them to be probed. - Active Vanilla Cloak reduces signature in half, fill lowslots and implant slots with ECCM to remain gay. - Active Cloak on ship with bonuses reduces it by 75%. Leaves Coverts, Recons and BO technically still undetectable as intended. - All other stuff as is (cycle times, invisibility, recalibration, etc.).
Huge nerf to lol-Solo capitals which shouldn't be possible anyway so bonus! Huge nerf to cloaky ratters so double bonus! |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.11 07:55:00 -
[2]
Re: B-flat's answer (suitable for wind instruments and generates a Soundwave .. get it?!? ): I'd like for the safety net to lose quite a few strings as well, but for all 'sides' as the state of unsafe for one easily translates into safe for another (most cases).
- Make cloaks probeable (see prev. post). - Remove local in player sovereign space (NPC null should be excluded to keep the allegedly superior PvP environment it has) - Tweak scanner mechanics to avoid carpal tunnel brought on by paranoid scan-spam. - Allow owner greater control over local (ex. non-blues always show) by sacrificing other tactical tools like jammers/bridges. - Etc.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.11 20:46:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CaptainFalcon07 If you think AFK cloaking sucks, wait until you go and live in a WH. 0.0 carebears have local to give them intel and to actually let them know that someone is in the system. Wormholes don't and people there do fine.
Worms don't exactly have the revolving doors that normal space does and it is very easy for a large enough expeditionary force to keep tabs on all comers or even prevent anything that may pose a threat from ever entering by collapsing the holes.
So yeah, great comparison, my dear
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 08:21:00 -
[4]
You haven't lived in a worm with an organized crew I take it? All holes are tagged almost at time of spawn and collapsing the potentially dangerous ones them takes very little effort. Keep in mind that the "real" worm dwellers don't solo crap like you are probably used to, so a T3 gang poses no significant threat .. read the long story about the first entity to ever be kicked out of a worm .. took almost six months if I recall (R&K doing the deed I think).
Originally by: Loki Sei So again, how much of your safety net "local intel" are you willing to give up to be able to address the afk cloaky?
Do try to keep up, already answered that question. Difference between us seems to be that you want changes that benefit your chosen modus operandi at the expense of all others, whereas I aim for actual balance.
Removing local alone breaks more than fixes.
PS: Please stop thinking I have anything to do with the daisy-chain stroking that is null .. I saw the impending fiasco of DOM before it was deployed and got out while the getting was good thank you very much.
Originally by: Toovhon I also say that making cloaked ships would screw over many bigger...
Oh no, my solo ratting super-capital backbone!!!!1111 You must be referring to supers, nothing else fits and nothing else would be impacted to any significant degree.
Guess what, supers shouldn't be out and about without support if they want to live. Supers are alliance assets speaks not only about the cost but how they were intended to be used, the fact that any moron with half a brain can buy one with a couple of months of grinding does not really change that.
Would probeable cloaks make Supers obsolete? Hardly, a few would die in a fire after the change but then tactical changes are made .. like jumping with triage NRG-trans Archons or forward bases (POS) along travel paths. Would probeable cloaks make solo Supers obsolete? Most definitely, as they should be. That homogeneous super-blobs is even viable is ridiculous beyond belief and one of the reasons why they will be hit hard when the pendulum comes back.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 10:26:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Toovhon ...But good job not knowing the speed capabilities of sub-caps while cloaked, or how far away one would have to be to escape tackling.
No serious pew'er cloaks their ships any more except maybe during logistics operations. Even macros/bots don't use cloaks any more for Goddess sake. The only 'combat' cloaks I have seen the past 4 years are fail BB's and dictors plus an assortment of noobs who don't know any better.
Remember that any one change will have to be made together with a whole slew of companion changes, probeable cloaks would fit nicely with an elimination of local for instance and would naturally exclude "legitimate" uses (ie. all ships with cloak bonuses).
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 19:01:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Toovhon You've obviously not spent much time in other people's space if you think cloaking isn't used by PvPers.
That is where the difference is, you probably think that killing PvE'ers is PvP whereas I consider it ratting .. Use a cloak on a ship not designed for it against a willing and armed opponent .. doesn't do very well at all.
There's a reason why cloaks on "combat" fits are laughed at when they appear on the various killboards.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Toovhon I think that I've had many a cat and mouse game with gate camps and locals in my stealth bomber, etc. ....
Oh you are suddenly speaking of ships designed with cloaking in mind, well guess where/when my "laughed at" comment was made .. let me quote you for ease of reference:
Originally by: Toovhon No, I'm mainly referring to Battlecruisers and battleships as I don't fly caps myself (nor do I have much interest in doing so). Most BCs and BSes cannot fly fast enough cloaked to make probing cloaked ships fail for them, if they're set to burn in a straight line. Nano fits might change that, but they have been impractical for larger ships since the nano nerf....
Had tons of fun with lots of cloaking BC/BS lately then? Did the people who slaughtered you commend you on your inspired fitting choices or did they laugh at you as if you just wet yourself in public?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 08:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Toovhon I think that I've had many a cat and mouse game with gate camps and locals in my stealth bomber, etc. ....
Oh you are suddenly speaking of ships designed with cloaking in mind, well guess where/when my "laughed at" comment was made .. let me quote you for ease of reference:
Originally by: Toovhon No, I'm mainly referring to Battlecruisers and battleships as I don't fly caps myself (nor do I have much interest in doing so). Most BCs and BSes cannot fly fast enough cloaked to make probing cloaked ships fail for them, if they're set to burn in a straight line. Nano fits might change that, but they have been impractical for larger ships since the nano nerf....
Had tons of fun with lots of cloaking BC/BS lately then? Did the people who slaughtered you commend you on your inspired fitting choices or did they laugh at you as if you just wet yourself in public?
Originally by: Ned Black ..The simple fact is... Local turns boys into (cry)babybears. This thread is the perfect example of that fact.
Quite right. The delayed local works really well in worms, for defender and attacker both. Now what kind of effect would it have if cynos were possible and all worms lasted for 24-72hrs with no mass restrictions? .. the two can not be compared or used as examples of how the other can/should be as the revolving doors make all the difference.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ned Black Would it suprise you greatly if I said that I would like black ops cynos to work in WHs?
To me that would be very cool indeed...
Would be cool, but it would skew the power ratio so much in favour of an attacker that no one will ever put down roots in worms. Would be similar to removing cyno jammers from game, it will quickly degenerate into Hot-drop-o'clock 23/7 with no thought or reason other than "just because". Any sort of permanent residence would be made impossible to maintain for any period of time.
|
|
|
|