Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
|
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:39:00 -
[2]
Not broken. No fix coming or required.
|
Semkhet
Saudarkars
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
LMAO: Now it's the inactive players who need to be nerfed... U must really be good at EVE to fear afk players.
Get a clue: if there's no balance in your brain, no amount of EVE's "fixing" will compense it
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:41:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:44:23
Originally by: Zombie Network
Not broken. No fix coming or required.
Originally by: Semkhet
LMAO: Now it's the inactive players who need to be nerfed... U must really be good at EVE to fear afk players.
Get a clue: if there's no balance in your brain, no amount of EVE's "fixing" will compense it
I guess you could claim that, but I can't see anyone pretending this isn't an issue, especially one that replies without answer to several pointed questions...
I also don't see this going away, no matter how hard many of you try to cling to what amounts to as an exploit.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:46:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Winterblink on 28/08/2007 19:46:51
*sigh* Ok then, lets answer those questions. To everyone else, pardon my quote-o-rama.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this?
A counter to what, someone logged on and not doing anything?
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Where does the balance lay?
He's doing nothing. Therefore there's nothing to balance.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What do you want, a forcible way to scan and decloak the person? That seems a bit extreme of a counter to a module which does nothing to you in response.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
If he's inactive, he might as well not be logged on since there's that much of an effect on you and your game. Thus he's doing nothing to warrant a response, or a counter.
|
Ikthorn Balhar
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:47:00 -
[6]
*sigh* This has been debated far too much to still have people asking about it.
What exactly is 'un-eve-like' about it? Are you part of the design team and decide what is and isn't supposed to be in EvE?
A cloaked player that is inactive poses no immediate threat to you or your mates. "But, they could be spying on us!!!" you could say, and that's the exact role of Covert Ops ships. Deal with it. There are ways to deal with cloaked players; you either wait them out (eventually they'll have to log), or you and your mates get more proficient at using scanning techniques and probing so that you may get to them quickly if/when they get uncloaked.
It's frustrating not being able to get the cloakers, but it's also frustrating to have someone at a safespot and not having a someone in gang who can probe them out. Are you going to ask to be able to probe safespoted ships with the onboard scanner too now?
|
Fswd
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:48:00 -
[7]
Zzzz...BORING --- Free exotic dancers for mods that mod my sig
*Snip* Please do not discuss moderation in your signature. -Yipsilanti ([email protected]) <-- freebie for you |
Nicho Void
Gallente Hyper-Nova
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:49:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Nicho Void on 28/08/2007 19:49:31 EDIT: Winterblink beat me to it
Originally by: Christari Zuborov When are we going to get a fix for cloaking?
We aren't. Nothing broken, no fix required, as stated above.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
Weapon? This may be your problem here. Explain to me how someone who, as you pointed out, is completely inactive, can be a weapon in any way?
Originally by: Christari Zuborov What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
Again, who says the AFK cloaker is attempting to accomplish anything other than avoid detection...which ::gasp:: is what a cloak is designed to do? ---------------
|
4rc4ng3L
Finite Horizon The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:49:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this?
So you want a counter to the afk guy who can do nothing but be afk...
Jesus, get a grip *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:44:23
Originally by: Zombie Network
Not broken. No fix coming or required.
Originally by: Semkhet
LMAO: Now it's the inactive players who need to be nerfed... U must really be good at EVE to fear afk players.
Get a clue: if there's no balance in your brain, no amount of EVE's "fixing" will compense it
I guess you could claim that, but I can't see anyone pretending this isn't an issue, especially one that replies without answer to several pointed questions...
I also don't see this going away, no matter how hard many of you try to cling to what amounts to as an exploit.
Its not an issue, you people are just complaining to complain. You want a way to find people not at the keyboard, and in a weakened state, so you can get an easy kill. AFK cloakers are harmless, they fly 10 m/s - 50 m/s, cannot target, cannot fire, cannot warp (except recons of course).
The penalties to cloaked are already high enough to allow them to sit and float where ever they damn well please. Now, if you want to be able to scan them out, they should be able to target and fire without coming out of cloak.
|
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:59:00 -
[11]
So have ppl been whining about this ever since beta? or did they just run out of other things to whine about so they decided to pick cloaking?
When I first started back in January there were rarely any if even 1 anti-cloaking thread.. then a few months later and thats all there is here now..
So it seems that once the Drone regions were being successfully looked at.. something else needed to be whined about.. In come the titans with their valid whainage about being overpwoered with remote DDD And the sudden problem with AFK cloaking that didn't seem to be a problem less then a year ago ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Maniva Lakona
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:59:00 -
[12]
If AFK cloakers cause you so much hassle maybe you should play another game, anyway.... STOP THE BLOODY CLOAK POSTS!
Jesus.
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Maniva Lakona If AFK cloakers cause you so much hassle maybe you should play another game, anyway.... STOP THE BLOODY CLOAK POSTS!
Jesus.
Indeed. It's right down there, in terms of raw annoyance factor, with people who are afk docked.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:01:00 -
[14]
next you will ask offline players to get nerfed ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:04:00 -
[15]
To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
Lol, this reminds me of that one fan-made flash movie about Revelations. All those ships floating around all peacefully, than one red jumps in and the entire system goes to ****e. OMG, ITS A RED! LOCKDOWN! LOCKDOWN!
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:11:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
Please remember to differentiate between cloaked recons with CovOps 2 cloaks and every other ship with a cloaking device.. err Oh wait.. you dont care.. you want an across the board nerf ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
oh this must be a joke post
a single person - shutting down any industrial activity for weeks - ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
Malcanis
High4Life SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:26:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri So have ppl been whining about this ever since beta? or did they just run out of other things to whine about so they decided to pick cloaking?
When I first started back in January there were rarely any if even 1 anti-cloaking thread.. then a few months later and thats all there is here now..
So it seems that once the Drone regions were being successfully looked at.. something else needed to be whined about.. In come the titans with their valid whainage about being overpwoered with remote DDD And the sudden problem with AFK cloaking that didn't seem to be a problem less then a year ago
It started when cloaks dropped ~75% in price
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:28:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
the answer you're looking for i beieve is: GO TO EMPIRE
|
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 28/08/2007 20:35:44
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
the answer you're looking for i beieve is: GO TO EMPIRE if you still need someone to hold your hand
No hand holding required here, apparently lots of hand holding required elsewhere however.
Not one person in this thread has answered the questions I posed. We've all heard the cookie cutter (I have no capability to think outside a wet paper bag) answer of, "Oh, if they are afk, then they aren't a threat!" This isn't what was asked, matter of factly, I posed the questions in manner purposely because I don't care about afk individuals.
I care about individuals sitting at the PC, inactively avoiding detection (as no attention is required) vs. legions of individuals actively searching for them. There is imbalance, and I'm asking CCP when there will be a fix, so as inactive players can't avoid active players, across the board. Recons, CovOps, Type IIs, none of them should ever inactively be able to avoid legions of active individuals.
Actively, you should continue to enjoy the benefit of your CovOps/Recon ship.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:00:00 -
[22]
your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
|
Okonaa
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:10:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Okonaa on 28/08/2007 21:11:26
actively...you are an CLICKME!
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:17:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:22:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:27:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov I don't care about afk individuals.
I care about individuals sitting at the PC, inactively avoiding detection (as no attention is required) vs. legions of individuals actively searching for them. There is imbalance, and I'm asking CCP when there will be a fix, so as inactive players can't avoid active players, across the board. Recons, CovOps, Type IIs, none of them should ever inactively be able to avoid legions of active individuals.
Actively, you should continue to enjoy the benefit of your CovOps/Recon ship.
Wtf, how many people do you know that sit at their pc and do nothing? and even if they did isn't that the same as being afk?
Tbh I don't understand what you are trying to say.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:30:00 -
[27]
the paper bag thing again dude, if it can be probed or otherwise found, what's the point of the module. it's not a balancing issue "sweetheart". it's a wtf is the use of a cloak issue. afk or not. your looking to kill the entire nature of said cloak if any of them can be probed. and again, it has been said in the thread. you are penalized just for having it attached to your ship. it is balanced "sweetheart".
you either just want an easy kill, or can't come up with anthing better to be ****ed about in this game. if you'd like i'm sure several people in this thread would be more than willing to point you in the direction of a real argument, cause it just sounds to me like you're whining.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
Accept that none of the defenses you listed have inherent harsh penalties like a cloak, which is their balancer. When my BS is cloaked, I creep along, I can't warp, I can't target, I can't shoot. That's the balance. I am just stuck there in cloak, doing nothing. That's the counter balance. Recons and CovOps are different and they are supposed to be that hard to detect, that's their purpose.
|
Billy Sastard
Amarr Life. Universe. Everything. Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:43:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Zombie Network Not broken. No fix coming or required.
QFT -=^=-
|
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:45:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:49:06 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:46:35
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
Accept that none of the defenses you listed have inherent harsh penalties like a cloak, which is their balancer. When my BS is cloaked, I creep along, I can't warp, I can't target, I can't shoot. That's the balance. I am just stuck there in cloak, doing nothing. That's the counter balance. Recons and CovOps are different and they are supposed to be that hard to detect, that's their purpose.
All you've done is list penalties, you never listed a counter.
Every item in game has a penalty of some sort, even the ones that don't have obvious drawbacks are penalized in grid or cpu usage. All of these items in addition to having penalties, have counters, so again, where's the counter to this?
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:47:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/08/2007 21:47:46 There was a fix. It was called Dragon-Patch.
Oh wai ...
In my humble opinion now, I think cloak is very balanced. The people against Dragon-Patch was right and I was wrong. It is doing what it is supposed to be doing - hiding. :) --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Kali is for KArebearLIng. I 100% agree with Avon.
Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game. |
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:50:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:46:35
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
Accept that none of the defenses you listed have inherent harsh penalties like a cloak, which is their balancer. When my BS is cloaked, I creep along, I can't warp, I can't target, I can't shoot. That's the balance. I am just stuck there in cloak, doing nothing. That's the counter balance. Recons and CovOps are different and they are supposed to be that hard to detect, that's their purpose.
All you've done is list penalties, you never listed a counter.
Every item in game has a penalty of some sort, even the ones that don't have obvious drawbacks are penalized in grid or cpu usage.
All of these items in addition to having penalties, have counters, so again, where's the counter?
You are missing the point, because you want to. Cloaks have a HUGE penalty, not an average penalty, not a "sort of kind of a trade off", they have a HUGE penalty, and that's what counters them. They don't need, nor will they get, a "counter" as you state it.
You are going to argue about this counter thing until you are blue in the face, and that's fine...but someday you may accept that cloaks are a special item that get their balance from their penalty, not a counter. This is pretty obvious from the way that CCP has them designed and their total lack of desire to change it.
|
Usagi Toshiro
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:56:00 -
[34]
The penalties are there. Also, doesn't the cloak disengage if another ship passes with in 2000 meters of the cloaked ship?
I'm picking up cloaking so I can go AFK on missions to take a leak while still in space and not come back to a pod (or worse.) Yeah, it'll come in handy for something else I'm sure.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 21:56:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:46:35
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:17:28
Originally by: sharkyballs your question has been answered.
the point of a cloak is to not be found. it's no different than not having one if you can probe it out. ie. i get in a safespot unclocked i CAN be probed and if i get in a safespot and cloak i CAN be probed. before you say "can't think outside of a wet paper bag" you should learn to ask outside of a wet paper bag.
Please tell me how someone (Recon/CovOp) actively avoiding being found, could be found, if probing of cloaked ships were allowed? Give it to me in step by step detail sweetheart.
I'll save you the time by telling you, you can't be found.
So again, we go back to being inactive, where's the balance?
You are still not differentiating the difference between a normal cloak and CovOps cloak. CovOps cloaks may have offensive usage, but normal cloaks are a defensive mechanism. What's the point of the normal cloaking device if you can just probe out a ship sitting at a safe spot cloaked? Oh that's right, there is no point....might as well remove it from the game.
Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
Accept that none of the defenses you listed have inherent harsh penalties like a cloak, which is their balancer. When my BS is cloaked, I creep along, I can't warp, I can't target, I can't shoot. That's the balance. I am just stuck there in cloak, doing nothing. That's the counter balance. Recons and CovOps are different and they are supposed to be that hard to detect, that's their purpose.
All you've done is list penalties, you never listed a counter.
Every item in game has a penalty of some sort, even the ones that don't have obvious drawbacks are penalized in grid or cpu usage.
All of these items in addition to having penalties, have counters, so again, where's the counter?
You are missing the point, because you want to. Cloaks have a HUGE penalty, not an average penalty, not a "sort of kind of a trade off", they have a HUGE penalty, and that's what counters them. They don't need, nor will they get, a "counter" as you state it.
You are going to argue about this counter thing until you are blue in the face, and that's fine...but someday you may accept that cloaks are a special item that get their balance from their penalty, not a counter. This is pretty obvious from the way that CCP has them designed and their total lack of desire to change it.
You are deliberately skirting the issue, because you have no answer.
A penalty is not a counter, a penalty reduces the desire to use something, but in no way can you call a penalty an antithesis. Antithesis != Penalty.
We've yet to determine CCP's desire or lack thereof to change it, as there's yet to be an answer.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:02:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
You are deliberately skirting the issue, because you have no answer.
A penalty is not a counter, a penalty reduces the desire to use something, but in no way can you call a penalty an antithesis. Antithesis != Penalty.
We've yet to determine CCP's desire or lack thereof to change it, as there's yet to be an answer.
No, my answer was pretty clear. It's that I disagree wholeheartedly that cloaks need a counter of any kind. The modules you used to say "Hey, these have counters" are completely different kinds of modules than cloaks and play an active role in combat in some way. Cloaks are a way to not get ganked, that's it (I am talking about normal cloaks here, not CovOps cloaks). You don't cloak in the middle of a fleet battle and go "derp derp" for 20 minutes.
Perhaps if this game weren't so polarized in the way it handles PvE and PvP fittings, PvE ships wouldn't need a way to run and hide anytime a PvP ship enters system. But that's not the case, so they do.
|
searess
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:03:00 -
[37]
Edited by: searess on 28/08/2007 22:03:50 Nerf the cloak again has this one not died a death yet ?
well their are 3 types of cloak , 1. your general bung it on anything cloak with a 30 second targeting penality only good for cloaking when ratting to stop the ebbil piwate finding you and helping you out of gate camps really as long as their are not to many hostile ships and drones around you. so your ship when cloaked is dead slow and you cant lock anything for half a year ( their is its disadvantage its rubbish )
Second one improved cloak good for stealth bombers it increases their speed when cloaked but cant warp negligable lock time penality but the ship is paper thin. so disadvantages here are you cant warp cloaked your ship can get blown up way to easy the ship is expensive.
Third cloak covops ( expensive ) can warp cloaked targeting penality of 5 seconds i think no other advantages here , disadvantages ship costs on average 60 mill cloak 60 mill ship is even thinner than a stealth bomber so goes pop faster oh the ship is very hard to fit with any for of weapons .
Nerf cloaks I think their nerfed enough thank you very much.
CCP please stop the nerf we dont need it...
Edited for clarity Hijackzorzzzz
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Dr Saitek
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:04:00 -
[38]
Cloaking is broken. Why am I the last to hear about broken things?!
Replying with my alt so I can say the same thing three times. Or not.
|
Lori Carlyle
Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:06:00 -
[39]
Why do you need a counter ?
Becuase everyother thing in eve has one ?... stupid fight and reason tbh.
Just off the top of my head.. and i'm sleepy so i'll try and make this readable.
New class of Probe, the probe does not find the ship!, it finds the exhust of the ship *IF* the mofo is moving under normal power (not warp) you can track this down and smartbomb the damn area to find the SOB
AFK cloakers can't be found, there not moving. Players, under cloak that are moving can be.
the exhuast would only take effect if the ship gives a command to move under normal speed (IE that slow down speed as you drop of of warp is not detactable, a ship thats been giving a command to move somewhere under cloak can be with a truck load of smartbombs)
there are going to be massive holes in that, like i said off the top of a sleepy guy shead so, pick as you will.
But personaly cloaks don't need a couter. ----
|
Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:09:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Del Narveux on 28/08/2007 22:09:29 Cloaking doesnt require a counter until or unless non covops cloaks become useful. Seriously, the inability to warp, move, or target quickly is penalty enough. As for the AFK cloaker issue, well this strikes me as more of a UI failing for not handling AFK very well, than a problem with cloaks.
BTW your comparison to an unstoppable ship is invalid. Such a ship would be unbalanced precisely because it can do its thing to other ships, cloakers inherently cant do jack while theyre cloaked. That would be a bit like saying being offline is unbalanced...because you cant shoot the guy at night when hes sleeping... _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
|
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Reblochons Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:11:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All you listed here are counters that work in combat, now remind me how useful is a cloaking device in combat on anything else than a bomber.
|
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:19:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Bodhisattvas on 28/08/2007 22:23:20
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:40:28 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
Does sir wish to be wrapped in cotton wool?
Is sir's game experiance being diminished by others who might wish to take advantage of something which sir obviously has no use for.
Damn without cloakies....strange peeps in vindicators yoyoing back and forth from low sec gates in hi sec might even loose them once in a while.
I've had some pretty amusing conversations with folk in 0.0 me being all cloaky like. I don't know its like they feel threatened cos your in "THEIR" space and they can't get all blobby on your ass.
I say keep cloaks for all peeps who wish to use them.
Keep the paranoid more paranoid.
p.s To stop auto logging off in 0.0 please make sure you add a busy chat channel before you go shopping, take a bath, go on holiday etc etc.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:20:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
You are deliberately skirting the issue, because you have no answer.
A penalty is not a counter, a penalty reduces the desire to use something, but in no way can you call a penalty an antithesis. Antithesis != Penalty.
We've yet to determine CCP's desire or lack thereof to change it, as there's yet to be an answer.
No, my answer was pretty clear. It's that I disagree wholeheartedly that cloaks need a counter of any kind. The modules you used to say "Hey, these have counters" are completely different kinds of modules than cloaks and play an active role in combat in some way. Cloaks are a way to not get ganked, that's it (I am talking about normal cloaks here, not CovOps cloaks). You don't cloak in the middle of a fleet battle and go "derp derp" for 20 minutes.
Perhaps if this game weren't so polarized in the way it handles PvE and PvP fittings, PvE ships wouldn't need a way to run and hide anytime a PvP ship enters system. But that's not the case, so they do.
You may think that cloaks don't need a counter, but that is your opinion, many people believe otherwise. It also proves my point in that you have indeed been skirting the issue, you knew there was no counter, but have only admitted to it when I painted you into a corner.
There's been quite a few changes in this game, and with those changes, new evaluation is in order of interactions - cloaking needs to be revisited.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
You are deliberately skirting the issue, because you have no answer.
A penalty is not a counter, a penalty reduces the desire to use something, but in no way can you call a penalty an antithesis. Antithesis != Penalty.
We've yet to determine CCP's desire or lack thereof to change it, as there's yet to be an answer.
No, my answer was pretty clear. It's that I disagree wholeheartedly that cloaks need a counter of any kind. The modules you used to say "Hey, these have counters" are completely different kinds of modules than cloaks and play an active role in combat in some way. Cloaks are a way to not get ganked, that's it (I am talking about normal cloaks here, not CovOps cloaks). You don't cloak in the middle of a fleet battle and go "derp derp" for 20 minutes.
Perhaps if this game weren't so polarized in the way it handles PvE and PvP fittings, PvE ships wouldn't need a way to run and hide anytime a PvP ship enters system. But that's not the case, so they do.
You may think that cloaks don't need a counter, but that is your opinion, many people believe otherwise. It also proves my point in that you have indeed been skirting the issue, you knew there was no counter, but have only admitted to it when I painted you into a corner.
There's been quite a few changes in this game, and with those changes, new evaluation is in order of interactions - cloaking needs to be revisited.
Okay, so I am going to use your own logic against you: What is the counter to PvE ships needing to fit entirely different builds to effectively PvE, limiting their PvP capability and making them completely vulnerable to being destroyed? Right now that counter is a cloak and a safe spot, but if you get your way, there is no counter. I am left completely open to being destroyed because I have no way to run and hide and my ship sure isn't going to stand up to a couple of well fit PvP ships, because of the way the game is balanced.
You could say a POS, but not every system ahs a POS and most individual players can't afford one. So now, because you dislike the capability of the average ratter to not get ganked by the gang of HAC's that just jumped in, I should either a) have to rat in systems with POS's, or b) put my wang out in the wind and possibly lose my 200m ISK ratting ship to some jerk off in a HAC because I have no reasonable way to fit a PvP setup on my PvE ship and still be able to actually kill rats.
|
Octaviun
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:30:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:40:28 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 Another Nerf Thread.]
Why nerf/fix/disable
something that isn't broken/overpowering/silly
stop crying NERF/FIX on everything you people see holy crap your gonna get this game revamped like SWG. NGE anyone? _________________________________________________
|
Arngorf
Minmatar x13
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:31:00 -
[46]
I really do like cloaks.. I just dont use them.. never needed them for PvP.. ________________________________________________ FORMER!!! I said FORMER Pirate...
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:32:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 28/08/2007 22:32:09
Originally by: Arngorf I really do like cloaks.. I just dont use them.. never needed them for PvP..
Normal cloaks aren't for active PvP, they are a way for non-PvP fit ships to not be sitting ducks to the PvP ships that roll through a system.
|
Bardley
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:34:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Okay, so I am going to use your own logic against you: What is the counter to PvE ships needing to fit entirely different builds to effectively PvE, limiting their PvP capability and making them completely vulnerable to being destroyed? Right now that counter is a cloak and a safe spot, but if you get your way, there is no counter. I am left completely open to being destroyed because I have no way to run and hide and my ship sure isn't going to stand up to a couple of well fit PvP ships, because of the way the game is balanced.
You could say a POS, but not every system ahs a POS and most individual players can't afford one. So now, because you dislike the capability of the average ratter to not get ganked by the gang of HAC's that just jumped in, I should either a) have to rat in systems with POS's, or b) put my wang out in the wind and possibly lose my 200m ISK ratting ship to some jerk off in a HAC because I have no reasonable way to fit a PvP setup on my PvE ship and still be able to actually kill rats.
<3
|
Zibun Ionic
Minmatar Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:36:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
You may think that cloaks don't need a counter, but that is your opinion, many people believe otherwise. It also proves my point in that you have indeed been skirting the issue, you knew there was no counter, but have only admitted to it when I painted you into a corner.
There's been quite a few changes in this game, and with those changes, new evaluation is in order of interactions - cloaking needs to be revisited.
You keep repeating that same thing over and over again without no further contribution to the debate.
There was a good argument (PVE ship against PVP ship need cloaks so it can hide, since it cannot fight.), there's the reason why cloak is needed just the way it is right now. No need for changes with cloak.
-Zib
Cloaca Maxima - The Sewage of Amarr Empire. |
Postlatta Mouseanon
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:44:00 -
[50]
I love these threads.
Cloaking must be setup just right since both carebears and pirates are whining.
But whining pirates? Oh my that is priceless.
|
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:47:00 -
[51]
Well I think that the current changes to sig raduis of ships has helped lay the groundwork for a probing based cloak detection system. At one time probing was tested on the test server, but they didnt like it so they rolled back the change. Last dev post says they are still working on a way to balance cloaking . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 22:58:00 -
[52]
It don't need fixing. It ain't broke.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Bloviation.
POST WITH YOUR ALT! |
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 23:02:00 -
[53]
Originally by: SiJira next you will ask offline players to get nerfed
Now that you mention it, I have been meaning to ask to a nerf for offline players for a while now. No more skill train offline pls CCP! K? Thx!
_________________________________
|
bigfatbird
Seven.
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 23:20:00 -
[54]
nerf this, nerf that.
geez, stop whining and start playing the game for a change.
|
Petstretsi Zuborov
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 23:24:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
You are deliberately skirting the issue, because you have no answer.
A penalty is not a counter, a penalty reduces the desire to use something, but in no way can you call a penalty an antithesis. Antithesis != Penalty.
We've yet to determine CCP's desire or lack thereof to change it, as there's yet to be an answer.
No, my answer was pretty clear. It's that I disagree wholeheartedly that cloaks need a counter of any kind. The modules you used to say "Hey, these have counters" are completely different kinds of modules than cloaks and play an active role in combat in some way. Cloaks are a way to not get ganked, that's it (I am talking about normal cloaks here, not CovOps cloaks). You don't cloak in the middle of a fleet battle and go "derp derp" for 20 minutes.
Perhaps if this game weren't so polarized in the way it handles PvE and PvP fittings, PvE ships wouldn't need a way to run and hide anytime a PvP ship enters system. But that's not the case, so they do.
You may think that cloaks don't need a counter, but that is your opinion, many people believe otherwise. It also proves my point in that you have indeed been skirting the issue, you knew there was no counter, but have only admitted to it when I painted you into a corner.
There's been quite a few changes in this game, and with those changes, new evaluation is in order of interactions - cloaking needs to be revisited.
Okay, so I am going to use your own logic against you: What is the counter to PvE ships needing to fit entirely different builds to effectively PvE, limiting their PvP capability and making them completely vulnerable to being destroyed? Right now that counter is a cloak and a safe spot, but if you get your way, there is no counter. I am left completely open to being destroyed because I have no way to run and hide and my ship sure isn't going to stand up to a couple of well fit PvP ships, because of the way the game is balanced.
You could say a POS, but not every system ahs a POS and most individual players can't afford one. So now, because you dislike the capability of the average ratter to not get ganked by the gang of HAC's that just jumped in, I should either a) have to rat in systems with POS's, or b) put my wang out in the wind and possibly lose my 200m ISK ratting ship to some jerk off in a HAC because I have no reasonable way to fit a PvP setup on my PvE ship and still be able to actually kill rats.
Are you kidding me?
#1) I PVE in a PVP setup, that's not very difficult to do, much of it depends on what you train.
#2) If you ever lived in 0.0 you'd know this already, but since you don't and haven't, you simply warp between safe spots. The fastest a person can get a WTZ lock on you is 26 seconds with a 5 AU probe. If you can't warp to another spot within 26 seconds, thus ruining the scan, you're not flying a PVE ship. This is actively avoiding being scanned, without a cloak.
|
Scary Woo
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 23:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Zombie Network Not broken. No fix coming or required.
QFT tbh...
|
Psorion
The Nine Gates R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:09:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
A single AFK scout shuts down a system for weeks? They should be ashamed of themselves.
Cloaked and AFK at a system near you... |
Divideby0
Gallente Amalgamated Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:27:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
There are no counters for cloaking ships...
When you're cloaked, you cant do anything except warp...if you're skilled enough. You're a fly on wall and a thorn in local.
There, countered!
Who is the bigger carebear: The miner who braves lowsec on his own, or the "PvPer" who attacks an unarmed ship? I support the f |
JonnyWarhawk
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:29:00 -
[59]
It's already too easy to get away in this game. Noone seems to want to fight and combat is few and far between. Cloaking needs a counter.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:38:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Divideby0
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
There are no counters for cloaking ships...
When you're cloaked, you cant do anything except warp...if you're skilled enough. You're a fly on wall and a thorn in local.
There, countered!
Penalties are not the same as counters, they are not the same.
|
|
Aramarr
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:49:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Aramarr on 29/08/2007 00:52:18 Edited by: Aramarr on 29/08/2007 00:51:55 Cloaking isn't broken at all... nuff said, check the age. (my new response to everything)
-sorry, here's my main... -Raynaar
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 00:52:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Sertan Deras Okay, so I am going to use your own logic against you: What is the counter to PvE ships needing to fit entirely different builds to effectively PvE, limiting their PvP capability and making them completely vulnerable to being destroyed? Right now that counter is a cloak and a safe spot, but if you get your way, there is no counter. I am left completely open to being destroyed because I have no way to run and hide and my ship sure isn't going to stand up to a couple of well fit PvP ships, because of the way the game is balanced.
You could say a POS, but not every system ahs a POS and most individual players can't afford one. So now, because you dislike the capability of the average ratter to not get ganked by the gang of HAC's that just jumped in, I should either a) have to rat in systems with POS's, or b) put my wang out in the wind and possibly lose my 200m ISK ratting ship to some jerk off in a HAC because I have no reasonable way to fit a PvP setup on my PvE ship and still be able to actually kill rats.
So basically what you are asking for is the ability to hunt down high value rats in low sec without any risk of losing your ship? Because that is how cloaking currently works; you warp away to any spot you like and hit the button and you are completely undetectable.
Might i ask how exactly the proposed changes to the cloaking system would completely void your current setup?
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Sicarri Covenant
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:00:00 -
[63]
If you not ready to play with the big boys, stay in highsec where your chances of being ganked are less
Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:05:00 -
[64]
In real life can u scan snipers too? I dont think so, u go to the street and u get a shoot in the ****in head, thats how eve works at the moment and we like it! So lets keep it that way.
|
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:06:00 -
[65]
Has anyone ever been killed by an afk player? Or even a cloaked one, am fairly sure a recon ship needs to "uncloak" in order to target anyone.
Although one time...I did kill a drake while still under gatecloak You got to love CCP servers and their desync problems Can you imagine the guy trying to work out what was shooting him. I couldn't move my ship to decloak, but I could lock and activate all modules. Obviously the server logs showed no problem
Anyway...cloaking is not a problem, no need to fix it. However, macro miners/ratters are a problem, and oh what a shame it is not to be able to farm for 23 hours because a hostile recon is system
I, erm, like kill things and stuff |
Yagyu Retsudo
Yagyu Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:08:00 -
[66]
Cloaking is fine. Ignore the whiners.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:09:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Zombie Network Not broken. No fix coming or required.
This....
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:10:00 -
[68]
I'm not a huge fan of having an "instant invulnerability" module in EVE, but I am a MASSIVE fan of a serious bit of covert ops recon on fleets (by far one of the most awesome parts of fleet combat, up there with things exploding).
And since "fixing" the problem will invariably horribly break it's legitimate use, and seeing as the good bits FAR outweigh the bad bits, I seriously don't think changing anything would be a good idea. --------
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:10:00 -
[69]
My gang just killed a sniper a couple minutes ago, u know why, cause we used our brains instead of coming to cry too ccp when u cant come up with solutions that might right in front of ur face, so instead of trying to think for ur self u try to twist the game to be like u want it to be! I dont like ur way so NO FOR THE CLOAK NERF!! U ARE RUINNING THE GAME WITH THESE STUPID CHANGES NERFS!! Bit by bit, one day no one will want to play it cause it will have lost all of its fun, no hard thinking no tactics, just jumping a gate a blowing up a ship thats what eve is gona become if u keep up with this and people will get bored of it and stop playin...
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:11:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Has anyone ever been killed by an afk player? Or even a cloaked one, am fairly sure a recon ship needs to "uncloak" in order to target anyone.
Although one time...I did kill a drake while still under gatecloak You got to love CCP servers and their desync problems Can you imagine the guy trying to work out what was shooting him. I couldn't move my ship to decloak, but I could lock and activate all modules. Obviously the server logs showed no problem
Anyway...cloaking is not a problem, no need to fix it. However, macro miners/ratters are a problem, and oh what a shame it is not to be able to farm for 23 hours because a hostile recon is system
Not asking for a modification to the current cloaks. Just the ability to use scan probes to find people who are cloaking. And please keep in mind that this would not affect those ships which are supposed to be undetectable like recons and cov ops ships. I have no problem with a cloaked recon in system spying on people, but cloaked farmers are a different issue.
|
|
Threeps
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:11:00 -
[71]
This post about cloaks was initiated due to 2-3 Sniping battleships that were cloaked in RoadKill space. RoadKill claims its not fair if they can not gank and blob. I guess they never heard of Guerilla warfare tactic when your out numbered. Tipical Big Corp crying about the little guys!!!
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:13:00 -
[72]
Well he cant farm much if hes cloaked lol...
|
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:13:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Marux
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Has anyone ever been killed by an afk player? Or even a cloaked one, am fairly sure a recon ship needs to "uncloak" in order to target anyone.
Although one time...I did kill a drake while still under gatecloak You got to love CCP servers and their desync problems Can you imagine the guy trying to work out what was shooting him. I couldn't move my ship to decloak, but I could lock and activate all modules. Obviously the server logs showed no problem
Anyway...cloaking is not a problem, no need to fix it. However, macro miners/ratters are a problem, and oh what a shame it is not to be able to farm for 23 hours because a hostile recon is system
Not asking for a modification to the current cloaks. Just the ability to use scan probes to find people who are cloaking. And please keep in mind that this would not affect those ships which are supposed to be undetectable like recons and cov ops ships. I have no problem with a cloaked recon in system spying on people, but cloaked farmers are a different issue.
Yeah there are two different takes on this. One idea was to simply increase the cpu usage of a cloaking device. This would compromise any ratting raven set up for example.
I, erm, like kill things and stuff |
Airdorn
Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:15:00 -
[74]
He's probably one of those lazy npc'ers who only come out when there's no hostiles in local and can't be arsed to go to another system.
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:17:00 -
[75]
Thats a good idea, increasing cpu will not affect the snipers cause they got alot of cpu left after the fit but probably hurt the tank of the farm ravens. But what u gona do to the farming barges in high sec? Or the guy that has 9 noob accounts in hulks mining ice? Thats a more dangerous farmer than the one in 0.0 in a raven probably...
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:18:00 -
[76]
If people would read the OP they would see that this change is not about nerfing the cloaking devices. Cloaks are fine as they are, it's the fact that there is currently no way to find someone who is cloaked that is the problem. The proposed change would not alter anyones ship setups, it would simply mean you would have to be alert when you are cloaking around.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:18:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 01:20:15
Originally by: Threeps This post about cloaks was initiated due to 2-3 Sniping battleships that were cloaked in RoadKill space. RoadKill claims its not fair if they can not gank and blob. I guess they never heard of Guerilla warfare tactic when your out numbered. Tipical Big Corp crying about the little guys!!!
Post the killboard where I'm involved or STFU liar.
Originally by: Marux If people would read the OP they would see that this change is not about nerfing the cloaking devices. Cloaks are fine as they are, it's the fact that there is currently no way to find someone who is cloaked that is the problem. The proposed change would not alter anyones ship setups, it would simply mean you would have to be alert when you are cloaking around.
QFL
(quote for literacy)
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:19:00 -
[78]
Or even better what about the farming roadkill chars that mine ice in 0.0 to feed their poses? Well maybe thats why they started this post in the first place cause their resources where compromised!! By the "snipers" with cloaks" lol
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:20:00 -
[79]
Aside from the circumstances surrounding the initial post, he's correct. Any module that allows a ship effective invulnerability requires a good, solid nerf. That, or its counter (in this case, probes) needs a good, solid, buff. I'm in favour of the latter. Allow probing, but not scanning of cloaked ships and the problem is solved.
|
Dr Moocowz
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:24:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 21:40:28 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 28/08/2007 19:35:10 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
Besides the obvious benefits of a cloak, they are a very effective counter to blobbers. For example...if someone were to blow up our POS, as a smaller corp/alliance, we would like to express our disappointement. However, when dealing with a alliance/corp that blobs, the situation becomes problomatic. Using cloakers would allow us to choose the time and place to say... strike at the nme's soft underbelly of ratters, miners, and other carebears. Not that Roadkill blobs. :/
|
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:26:00 -
[81]
Scan probes are a much better solution to this problem since it does not change anything for those that do use the cloaking devices, combined with the fact that the people that trained the skills to use cloaking devices put a fair amount of time into training the skills, and for someone to track down a cloaker who is not afk would be difficult without equally good probe skills. And if you are afk cloaked, well, don't cry when someone probes you out; afking in EVE = Death in almost all situations.
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:27:00 -
[82]
Well is like the ones that run to the stations and dock and stay there all day. why cant we board the station and kill them in FPS mode? lol
If u manage to get this accepted, we will still roam around ur system and kill u! What excuse will u get for that? In 0.0 u will never be at peace in a system! We will be there to gank u!!!
|
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:29:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Elmicker Aside from the circumstances surrounding the initial post, he's correct. Any module that allows a ship effective invulnerability requires a good, solid nerf. That, or its counter (in this case, probes) needs a good, solid, buff. I'm in favour of the latter. Allow probing, but not scanning of cloaked ships and the problem is solved.
He can't cloak if he is locked. He is certainly not invulnerable, a half decent ceptor and dictor pilot will even kill coverts jumping into system.
Being able to probe a cloaked ship, makes the cloak completely useless. If I dock up in a system, I am invulnerable. Parking at a safe spot and cloaking, is the same.
The only change needed for cloaks, imo, is that it is made MUCH harder to fit it to a non covert ship, without completely compromising that ships set up.
After fitting a cloak, you become a recon ship, your combat ability is reduced dramatically. (exception being of course the covert recons, but they already get the 100% reduction to cpu )
I, erm, like kill things and stuff |
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:31:00 -
[84]
If u allow the scan probe of cloakers u might as well remove them from the game, cause such devices will become obsolete! Who will want to cloak in some place when u can be scanned and warped to u! No one will use them!!
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:36:00 -
[85]
Cloaking already has a huge penalty! U have to wait a couple of seconds before u lock someone after u uncloak! So ur target will run if u are working alone! Also u cannot move if u are cloaked, if they accept to be able to scan a cloaked ship then i want u to remove the penalty to speed!
|
Leighanne
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:37:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Leighanne on 29/08/2007 01:38:31 To be perfectly honest I'm a huge carebear - I dislike PVP cause wel I suck at it so I don't bother. We've had plenty of 'afk cloakers' come into our space and sit round doing nothing - all this does it disrupt my mining/ratting for all of about 5 mins until one of our alliance members catches them coming through a gate - tells the rest of us what the ship type is.
If its anything except a covops or a recon we can pretty much ignore it because as many people have pointed out ... its AFK ... AFK people .. what in the blue blazers is an AFK cloaked *insert generic t1 ship type here* going to do ?
Suddenly uncloak warp to a belt a shoot my barge - gimmie a break - I'd see him coming before he even got out of warp - be aligned and into warp myself by the time he could get a lock. Even if he manages to get one volley off his alpha will be too low to insta pop me in my hulk and I won't be there for round two.
The only ships that worry me with cloaking are the ones specifically designed to use cloaks to their max advantage - if they come then yeah sure I'll be docking up forming a home defence fleet and going out to help the best I can with the crappy ships that I have. Diddums ... if that happens the person is clealy not AFK and therefore a legitimate threat using game mechanics exactly as they were intended.
If your a pirate and complaining that you can't gank mission runners cause they just SS and afk cloak for an hour till you get bored - cry me a river - your a pirate you deserve to have you gameplay ruined every now and again since you do it to others so often. All part of the game.
Cloaks are in no way broken - they do not require a fix - their negative effects are so great that I don't use them myself and I'm exactly they kind of carebear pansy who should be using them.
So get off the grass ... if you still feel like they are broken I suggest you try a fantasy based MMO - WoW would be good - I hear they have soft padding on swords now as to not cause too much damage to other players also they have a wonderful spell called See invisible.
*Disclaimer* Since I've just admitted to being a pansy carebear who sucks at pvp it would not be prudent for me to post with me main least someone take advantage of this fact.
Edit: changed words filtered out so that no thinks I'm swearing as I'm not.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:37:00 -
[87]
/me yawns.
Be scared of local rising not afk alts in cloaked ships.
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
-Albert Einstein
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:41:00 -
[88]
If they nerf cloaks then they got to remove the local window! Cause its the most stupid thing in the game...
|
Jukan Kitar
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:42:00 -
[89]
Yeah Like if u had a local window in space LMAO!!!
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:42:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Filipa Gomez If u allow the scan probe of cloakers u might as well remove them from the game, cause such devices will become obsolete! Who will want to cloak in some place when u can be scanned and warped to u! No one will use them!!
Let me lay out a theoretical situation for you, assuming scan probes were in the game. You are cloaked in a system and a hostile warps in and proceeds to probe you out. Now if you are paying attention then you will have no problem staying one step ahead of whoever it is chasing you since he has to first launch the probe, get the results, then warp to your location. At best just warping to you would take about 10-15 seconds; more than enough time to escape, or if you don't like that option then just fly your ship in a straight line, when the prober warps in he will arrive at your former destination, not your current one. And this is assuming that he actually has decent probe skills and is flying a ship designed for probing (a frigate) So now you have a pesky frigate chasing you, with very little chance to catch you. And for those that don't have probe abilities your cloaking device is still just as effective as it was.
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:43:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar He can't cloak if he is locked. He is certainly not invulnerable, a half decent ceptor and dictor pilot will even kill coverts jumping into system.
So it requires a monumental **** up from the cloaker and some excellent piloting from the decloaker to kill this thing? Yeah, that's totally balanced.
Also ignores the fact that most cloakers who terrorise systems are alts who will stay in systems for weeks at a time. You don't get that chance to catch them on a gate. Your only chance once they're in a system is a hauler trap of some sort, which again, relies on a monumental ****up from the cloaker and excellent teamwork from the defenders.
Quote: Parking at a safe spot and cloaking, is the same.
...
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:44:00 -
[92]
U must be the one that has the probe market under control cause i only see u talkin about probes!
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:47:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Filipa Gomez U must be the one that has the probe market under control cause i only see u talkin about probes!
Yes. I control a market dependant on freely available and cheap BPOs.
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:49:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Filipa Gomez U must be the one that has the probe market under control cause i only see u talkin about probes!
No I'm simply staying on topic with the OP and with the Dev statements. Cloaking devices don't need a nerf. I would much rather see functionality and diversity increase in eve rather then a never ending strong of nerfs.
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:52:00 -
[95]
So u want diversity, ok make a bomb that will have a very small damage but has for example 400km range just to make cloakers visible when the blast hits them, cause people runing to ss and claok is the same thing than be running from ss to ss when people drop probes or to planet or moons etc... Some people even log off and then log back on again and do so every 10 to 10 minutes...
|
Maxpie
Cross Roads
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:52:00 -
[96]
A simple and logical solution would be to make the cap requirements of the cloak based upon ship mass or sig radius, except for dedicated cloakers such as covops and recons. After all, wouldn't it take exponentially more energy to keep a raven cloaked as compared to a frigate.
This change would enable the raven to cloak, but it would quickly run out of cap. Meanwhile the covops could stay in the system cloaked all day if he wants.
He put... creatures... in our bodies... to control our minds. He made us... say lies... do things. |
Raynaar
Amarr Intergalactic Mining And Trade Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:54:00 -
[97]
Fk a nerf... boost the counter that's not strong enough....
-Ray
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:55:00 -
[98]
Hum that cap usage would probably avoid them from cloaking and leaving the ship there all day, at least leave cap enough for him to go to the bathroom take a **** or do the popo!!
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:56:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 01:56:12 But why should a covert ops be allowed to stay invulnerable all day? If a pilot isn't there, his ship should be allowed to be killed. Allowing them to be probed does nothing to harm safed recons or cov opses; they can warp away, or hell, set their speed to 100m/s and be practically untouchable again. However, if they go AFK, they could be found, decloaked, and killed. No AFKer should ever be safe, unless he is in a POS or station.
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 01:56:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Raynaar Fk a nerf... boost the counter that's not strong enough....
-Ray
Thank god someone who read the OP.
People, this thread is not about cloaking devices, but rather the ability to probe out those who are using non-covert ops cloaks.
|
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:03:00 -
[101]
Its a cloaking device... It's job is to cloak a ship... Anything else isnt a cloaking device.
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
-Albert Einstein
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:03:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 01:56:12 But why should a covert ops be allowed to stay invulnerable all day? If a pilot isn't there, his ship should be allowed to be killed. Allowing them to be probed does nothing to harm safed recons or cov opses; they can warp away, or hell, set their speed to 100m/s and be practically untouchable again. However, if they go AFK, they could be found, decloaked, and killed. No AFKer should ever be safe, unless he is in a POS or station.
Because those ships are designed to be spy ships. Neither of them have much potential outside of their class specific roles. The force recon ship is meant to sit around and open cyno's and the covert ops frigate is a probe ship, which must sit around to wiat for it's probe results.
|
Christari Zuborov
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:04:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Marux
Originally by: Raynaar Fk a nerf... boost the counter that's not strong enough....
-Ray
Thank god someone who read the OP.
People, this thread is not about cloaking devices, but rather the ability to probe out those who are using non-covert ops cloaks.
This is quoted from page #1, about 4-5 posts in where I had to clarify almost immediately from the initial posts, for the reading impaired.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 28/08/2007 20:35:44
Originally by: Princess Jodi To the OP: I've argued the same point as you for years. Those who deny there is a problem with afk cloaker really don't get it. Apparently, they are all PVP/Pirate types who don't consider a cloaked recon a threat.
All I can say is that CCP is apparently not going to make a counter to cloaked ships. Nor are they gonna nerf Cloaked battleships and capitals.
I do sympathize, and saw a single afk scout who was in system 23/7 for weeks completely shut down any industrial activity in a system. But between the blind ignorance of those who won't see the problem, and CCP's lack of tools to do anything about it, I think we're screwed.
the answer you're looking for i beieve is: GO TO EMPIRE if you still need someone to hold your hand
No hand holding required here, apparently lots of hand holding required elsewhere however.
Not one person in this thread has answered the questions I posed. We've all heard the cookie cutter (I have no capability to think outside a wet paper bag) answer of, "Oh, if they are afk, then they aren't a threat!" This isn't what was asked, matter of factly, I posed the questions in manner purposely because I don't care about afk individuals.
I care about individuals sitting at the PC, inactively avoiding detection (as no attention is required) vs. legions of individuals actively searching for them. There is imbalance, and I'm asking CCP when there will be a fix, so as inactive players can't avoid active players, across the board. Recons, CovOps, Type IIs, none of them should ever inactively be able to avoid legions of active individuals.
Actively, you should continue to enjoy the benefit of your CovOps/Recon ship.
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:05:00 -
[104]
2 words: ISK FARMERS
They abuse the cloaks more than anyone in eve. If they **** off the isk farmers then OMGZORZ!@#$!@#$!@#$ CCP loses money.
Cloaks will not be 'fixed' as long as isk farmers help CCP with it's bottom line.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:07:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Marux Because those ships are designed to be spy ships.
You stop being a spy the second you go AFK. Your argument of the cloakers "operating within their role" goes straight out of the window with that one.
Quote: The force recon ship is meant to sit around and open cyno's
I thoroughly lol'd.
Quote: which must sit around to wiat for it's probe results.
Yeah, which its perfectly safe to do, as long as it doesnt go AFK for hours at a time.
|
Arvald
Caldari House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:07:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Filipa Gomez My gang just killed a sniper a couple minutes ago, u know why, cause we used our brains instead of coming to cry too ccp when u cant come up with solutions that might right in front of ur face, so instead of trying to think for ur self u try to twist the game to be like u want it to be! I dont like ur way so NO FOR THE CLOAK NERF!! U ARE RUINNING THE GAME WITH THESE STUPID CHANGES NERFS!! Bit by bit, one day no one will want to play it cause it will have lost all of its fun, no hard thinking no tactics, just jumping a gate a blowing up a ship thats what eve is gona become if u keep up with this and people will get bored of it and stop playin...
use of the letter U instead of you makes baby jesus cry forum warrior in training ya cant stop the rokh
Originally by: Tsia Yarrr, server be down
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:09:00 -
[107]
Dude that post just makes u terribly lame! If one single "afk cloaker" in the system can shut down ur industrial ops in the system is cause u have no defense at all!!! Wich means u dont role play and ur a farmer!!!! Ur probably the guy with the 4 mackinaws that where farming the system near roadkill main station farming ice with a dominix tanking the rats!
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:09:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Loyal Servant 2 words: ISK FARMERS
They abuse the cloaks more than anyone in eve. If they **** off the isk farmers then OMGZORZ!@#$!@#$!@#$ CCP loses money.
Cloaks will not be 'fixed' as long as isk farmers help CCP with it's bottom line.
It would still be possible for ISK farmers to avoid combat. If they were actively avoiding scan probing, there's little to nothing that can be done. People who have safe spots, and continuously warp from point to point, still remain invulnerable.
This post remains pointed directly at those who aren't actively evading their hunters, through no action on their part they are invincible, while legions search in vain. This is wrong, it's an imbalance that's in need of correction, it's an imbalance who's time has come, and this needs to be visited.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:10:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 02:10:33
Originally by: Filipa Gomez Dude that post just makes u terribly lame! If one single "afk cloaker" in the system can shut down ur industrial ops in the system is cause u have no defense at all!!!
Actually, if you bothered to read the OP, its about how the defense force (part of a capable and accomplished PvP alliance) was unable to do anything, despite trying everything available to them. It also remarks that the cloakers weren't AFK .
Also.
Originally by: Arvald use of the letter U instead of you makes baby jesus cry
This.
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:13:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Marux Because those ships are designed to be spy ships.
You stop being a spy the second you go AFK. Your argument of the cloakers "operating within their role" goes straight out of the window with that one.
Quote: The force recon ship is meant to sit around and open cyno's
I thoroughly lol'd.
Quote: which must sit around to wiat for it's probe results.
Yeah, which its perfectly safe to do, as long as it doesnt go AFK for hours at a time.
I understand what you are saying here, but the thing is you must be willing to accept a compromise if you want anything changed at all.
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:14:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Marux I understand what you are saying here, but the thing is you must be willing to accept a compromise if you want anything changed at all.
Allowing them to be probed, but not scanned IS a compromise. It beats the living **** out of suggestions like making cloaks use cap, which would utterly screw actual cloaking snipers and the like. Though i'd still like to see them nerfed with an increase in the penalties for fitting a cloak
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:15:00 -
[112]
This post is not about any op, is about roadkillŠs farmers that have no rest! And all the farmers in the game too!
|
Filipa Gomez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:19:00 -
[113]
The true warrior never comes to the forums and crys about the game, cryin is the farmers way, now the warrior, he never comes to the forums, he comes and he kills, kills underwater, kills on the forests, in the mountains, in the air, underground, he kills no matter how the game is, he never spends a tear! Gd damn farmers that u all are!
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:21:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Filipa Gomez ...he comes and he kills, kills underwater, kills on the forests, in the mountains, in the air, underground...
Are you actually going to present any arguments, or simply spam the thread with further drivel?
Originally by: Filipa Gomez This post is not about any op
OP stands for Original Post. In this context, it is not an abbreviation for operation.
|
Jukan Kitar
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:22:00 -
[115]
I think cloaks are weak, they should be made better, we should be able to fire cloaked
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:23:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Marux I understand what you are saying here, but the thing is you must be willing to accept a compromise if you want anything changed at all.
Allowing them to be probed, but not scanned IS a compromise. It beats the living **** out of suggestions like making cloaks use cap, which would utterly screw actual cloaking snipers and the like. Though i'd still like to see them nerfed with an increase in the penalties for fitting a cloak
Being able to scan cloaked ships was never suggested. And the main issue here is the people who invest a paltry ammount of SP to fit a regular cloak to their BS and then go farming with no real risks. Fitting a covert ops cloak on the other hand takes a tad bit more time. And until we can find a solution that would be fair to those who have spent the ammount of time to get into a covert ops ship, we should probably focus on being able to detect the non covert ops.
|
Kraken Lord
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:26:00 -
[117]
Any change to cloaking devices will never happen, ur time spent on the forums to change them is futile!
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:28:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Kraken Lord Any change to cloaking devices will never happen, ur time spent on the forums to change them is futile!
What a shame that this thread isn't about changing the cloaking devices, but rather scan probe mechanics. Guess my time isn't being wasted after all.
|
Regaul Kinath
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:29:00 -
[119]
This post should be closed its not helping.
|
RtoZ
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:34:00 -
[120]
As I stated in a recent thread I made about this, I think the mechanics of cloaking are fine as is. IMO the only fix needed is to stop afk cloaking having a relevance in alliance gameplay, as some people currently use it to influence systems they would otherwise not be able to cover, so they sit an afk cloaker in there all day and keep everyone else guessing. This is a bit lame and imo should not be possible, which is why I proposed a timer on the cloak, with which it starts using more cap as time goes by till eventually the ship drops itself out of cloak. This is related to the mechanics of local too, so if these were to be changed the above suggestion might not be needed.
For everything else cloaked mechanics are good imo, cloak is something that counters itself. Sure, you become a ghost, but like a ghost you can't touch anything. All that needs to dealt with is cloakers haunting systems while afk
|
|
Raynaar
Amarr Intergalactic Mining And Trade Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:42:00 -
[121]
Here's an idea (after scanning these posts...): limit cloaking time to 30 mins to an hr... any1 should be able to go ****, make a drink, etc. in that amount of time...
correction: let's make it 3 hrs... i gotta have enough time for my r/l social endeavours which may or may not take place in any room contained in my current residence and may or may not take place with any other significant individual involved currently with me, my close personal friends, my co-workers, family members, or other significant others....
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:43:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Marux And until we can find a solution that would be fair to those who have spent the ammount of time to get into a covert ops ship, we should probably focus on being able to detect the non covert ops.
How is it unfair? If you're not AFK, and not a complete and utter turd, you could easily avoid any attempts to find you.
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:49:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Marux And until we can find a solution that would be fair to those who have spent the ammount of time to get into a covert ops ship, we should probably focus on being able to detect the non covert ops.
How is it unfair? If you're not AFK, and not a complete and utter turd, you could easily avoid any attempts to find you.
It's fair in the way that MS' and titans are immune to EW. But carrier and dreads aren't. I just want the devs to implement what they have already talked about.
|
Raynaar
Amarr Intergalactic Mining And Trade Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:51:00 -
[124]
Ok, so how's this? Cloak as long as you like, but local channel disappears if you enable cloak...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:53:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 02:53:24
Originally by: Marux It's fair in the way that MS' and titans are immune to EW. But carrier and dreads aren't. I just want the devs to implement what they have already talked about.
You're making no sense... MS and Titans recieve their immunities due to the massive logisitcal investments involved in building them, and due to their role as supercaps. The cost argument is absurd, and an AFK recon or covert ops ship is no longer fulfilling its role. Because of this, it should not be provided the same benefits that one that is working within its role gets, as it is for any other ship. You go AFK and you can be probed (albeit with some difficulty in the decloaking process) - sounds fair to me.
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:53:00 -
[126]
Also, to clarify what exactly this nerf was supposed to be, please read the OP here: Cloak Nerf Petition
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:54:00 -
[127]
ZOMG! They're iz noe counteeeerzzz!
Tractor Beams - no counter Cargo Scanners - no counter Snowball frikkin launchers - no counter D'uh! Cloaking devices - no counter
What do these mods have in common? That's right, they don't hurt anyone else.
STFU with the no counter argument cos it's based on a faulty premise; that a direct counter should exist for utility modules.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 02:56:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds What do these mods have in common? That's right, they don't hurt anyone else.
You're like a crap chess player. You lack the ability to see beyond the absolute intial effects.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:00:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds What do these mods have in common? That's right, they don't hurt anyone else.
You're like a crap chess player. You lack the ability to see beyond the absolute intial effects.
You apparently lack the ability to address the argument.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:03:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You apparently lack the ability to address the argument.
Because you're posting random crap with no relevance. There are a myriad of ways a cloaker can harm you. You just can't see them. I'm a great believer in self-education.
|
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:15:00 -
[131]
If you guys are just going to attack each other verbally please take it somewhere else so we can keep the thread on-topic. Also, for those who would like reference to the dev posts You can see them here
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:23:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You apparently lack the ability to address the argument.
Because you're posting random crap with no relevance. There are a myriad of ways a cloaker can harm you. You just can't see them. I'm a great believer in self-education.
Perhaps that explains your confusion. Let me break it down for you.
1. There is an argument that the cloaking device should have a direct counter.
2. This argument has presented the cloaking device as if it is an offensive module.
3. The cloaking device is clearly a utility module, in that it cannot give a combat advantage.
4. The argument for the creation of a direct counter for cloaking devices is invalid if it is presented as in (2).
So why does the "cloaks require a counter" argument seem to hold to weight if it has no basis?
Although the cloaking device is not a combat module, it presents a 'perceived advantage' based upon it's strategic use. However;
5. A strategic threat requires a strategic counter, not necessarily a mechanical one.
The central issue then pivots upon the whether sufficient tools exist to counter the strategic threat posed, but people have to first agree that the strategic threat is even real, and that's where the name calling and wedgies start.
In any case, it is certainly not enough to pretend the cloak is an offensive module and call for a counter on that basis.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:32:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds 2. This argument has presented the cloaking device as if it is an offensive module.
No it wasn't.
Whether it is an offensive or utility module has no bearing on the argument (though they can be used in an offensive, defensive or utlity manner, just as with any other mod in eve). Nor does your opinion that the effects are "percieved" or theoretical for the sake of argument, they're there and they're observable. Arguing whether they exist is diverting from the original point.
The fact stands that cloaks provide a ship with 100% invulnerability. No ship, in space, logged on should EVER be 100% safe. This is the core principle of eve. On that basis alone a counter needs to be added to cloaked ships.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Sicarri Covenant
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:36:00 -
[134]
It not 100% safe... every once in a while a cloaker gets too close to something and the resulting boom is that much sweeter
Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
|
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:36:00 -
[135]
And a proposed counter was planned by devs in this thread, to be launched with a previous patch, but it was removed before the patch hit.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:39:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny It not 100% safe... every once in a while a cloaker gets too close to something and the resulting boom is that much sweeter
Sorry. I should have said "100% safe, assuming the pilot isn't a complete and utter ****muppet".
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 03:56:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds 2. This argument has presented the cloaking device as if it is an offensive module.
No it wasn't.
Yes it did:-
Originally by: Christari Zuborov How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
Originally by: Elmicker Whether it is an offensive or utility module has no bearing on the argument (though they can be used in an offensive, defensive or utlity manner, just as with any other mod in eve).
It does have a bearing on the argument, because that is the argument I was addressing. You cannot compare a cloak to a directly offensive/ defensive module as a basis for calling for a direct counter.
Originally by: Elmicker Nor does your opinion that the effects are "percieved" or theoretical for the sake of argument, they're there and they're observable. Arguing whether they exist is diverting from the original point.
The nature of the strategic threat of cloaked ships is obviously debatable. That's the very reason these threads get so damn long.
Originally by: Elmicker The fact stands that cloaks provide a ship with 100% invulnerability.
Actually, no they don't.
Invulnerability means imperviousness to attack. A cloak will make no difference to a ship's ability to withstand attack. If it did, it would be a defensive module and not a utility module.
Originally by: Elmicker No ship, in space, logged on should EVER be 100% safe. This is the core principle of eve.
No, the core principle of Eve is that you pay CCP your subscription and they decide the rules.
At the moment, they say that a ship that poses no threat can be safe anywhere.
|
THEGREAT LOBO
Trouble Every Day
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 04:20:00 -
[138]
Edited by: THEGREAT LOBO on 29/08/2007 04:20:26 I think its time for ccp to put in a new channel in the forums "The Whine channel". it can be a cool place for people to whine about the ship or module that just killed them or something in the game that is just annoying them.
That way ccp will know where to look when they wanna ruin the game some more.. Give it some time and we can all use cookie cutter setups that don't require any thought at all, because everything will be nerfed and the same
---------------------------------------------
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 04:48:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Marux
Originally by: Kraken Lord Any change to cloaking devices will never happen, ur time spent on the forums to change them is futile!
What a shame that this thread isn't about changing the cloaking devices, but rather scan probe mechanics. Guess my time isn't being wasted after all.
You don't honestly think you can talk about 1 w/o talking about the other. You want to discuss a solution for a problem you claim to not want to talk about. Must not be that much of a problem ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Marux
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:10:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Marux What a shame that this thread isn't about changing the cloaking devices, but rather scan probe mechanics. Guess my time isn't being wasted after all.
You don't honestly think you can talk about 1 w/o talking about the other. You want to discuss a solution for a problem you claim to not want to talk about. Must not be that much of a problem
I apologize for that post being off topic and I have since removed it. Also, I have been talking about both of these things. It is my personal belief that what is needed here is for CCP to continue with its plan to make scan probes capable of detecting non-covert cloaked ships, and not to "nerf" cloaking devices. The current cloaking devices work fine aside from the fact they offer complete invulnerability from someone trying to track down a ship fitted with even the lowest level of cloaking device.
|
|
Lhun
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:16:00 -
[141]
I've been decloaked and killed plenty of times. IF you have a decent sized gate camp, simply fly at the area you saw the guy cloak in at with drones out and de-cloak him. Happened to me twice last week.
If you're referring to real covops cloaks, uhh... big scary probes hurting you?
Get over it.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:16:00 -
[142]
Whiney poster: Dur, cloaking is broken11!!!1! fix ccp or i cry! CCP <doesn't "fix" anything> Whiney poster: Dur cloaking still broked, you is not noticing it is not balanced CCP <still doesn't "fix" > Whiney poster: dur ccp is stupid head, they not see it borked The rest of us: FFS STFU already, its not broken Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:17:00 -
[143]
Cloaking needs to be nerfied, carebares need to go play wow. No one should be safe in 0.0, ratters with cloaks are 10 times worse than hostiles with cloaks.
Covops clocking should stay.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:29:00 -
[144]
I love it when we reach the state of alternatives and insults, it's the act of negotiation, and the realization a crutch is about to be removed.
I refer you to these posts:
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:29:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Marux I understand what you are saying here, but the thing is you must be willing to accept a compromise if you want anything changed at all.
Allowing them to be probed, but not scanned IS a compromise. It beats the living **** out of suggestions like making cloaks use cap, which would utterly screw actual cloaking snipers and the like. Though i'd still like to see them nerfed with an increase in the penalties for fitting a cloak
Allowing them to be probed completely destroys anything BUT a CovertOps/Recon with the Covert cloak. You might as well remove the other cloaks from the game. Why? Simple:
The target location given by the probe is at the END of the scan time, meaning that even if the probe ran for 3 hours it would pin-point the cloaked ship. A non-covert cloak moves slow enough that any half-competent prober can then warp to location, deploy drones and tell them to orbit and be virtually guaranteed to de-cloak the ship. You go from invulnerability to destroying the module.
So unless probes are altered to give a result at a random time during the scan process they aren't an acceptable option. Even if they do give a result in the middle of the scan process a fast scanning ship (35-40 second scan times) would be able to get a lock, warp gang to location and still catch the cloaked ship before it gets out of decloak range of the drones...
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 05:50:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 05:52:02
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Marux I understand what you are saying here, but the thing is you must be willing to accept a compromise if you want anything changed at all.
Allowing them to be probed, but not scanned IS a compromise. It beats the living **** out of suggestions like making cloaks use cap, which would utterly screw actual cloaking snipers and the like. Though i'd still like to see them nerfed with an increase in the penalties for fitting a cloak
Allowing them to be probed completely destroys anything BUT a CovertOps/Recon with the Covert cloak. You might as well remove the other cloaks from the game. Why? Simple:
The target location given by the probe is at the END of the scan time, meaning that even if the probe ran for 3 hours it would pin-point the cloaked ship. A non-covert cloak moves slow enough that any half-competent prober can then warp to location, deploy drones and tell them to orbit and be virtually guaranteed to de-cloak the ship. You go from invulnerability to destroying the module.
So unless probes are altered to give a result at a random time during the scan process they aren't an acceptable option. Even if they do give a result in the middle of the scan process a fast scanning ship (35-40 second scan times) would be able to get a lock, warp gang to location and still catch the cloaked ship before it gets out of decloak range of the drones...
When you actually get a covert ops boat, why don't you come back and let us know how this went. This is completely false... You can't even scan down a ship without a cloak fitted and lock it if it's warping between safes.
The post is completely in regards to players who aren't actively avoiding being scanned down. Repeat that to yourself a couple of times, no activity in avoiding being scanned down. If you don't try, you should be found. If you don't at least put some effort into what you're doing, you should be had. There's no reason to allow this un-eve-like activity to continue, and we're fed up with it!
What happened to the patch we were promised? What is the status of this update?
|
Beast Rabban
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 06:10:00 -
[147]
Since being docked in a station makes you invincible and you can go afk in a station and undock from it at any time and attack anyone you want in that system, I think you should make it so that if anyone is in your station (think hostile docked before ownership switched to you) you should be able to eject them and all their ships and modules into a giant jetcan and be able to pop it all. I mean, that's fair right? There's no counter to someone sitting in your station and relisting all of your market, not being able to shoot them, and undocking at -any- time they choose and hitting your miners in system. Kinda sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it?
|
PostWithYourMain
Main Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 06:23:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:16:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:08:56 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
Cloaking needs to be fixed?
|
Miss Ion
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 06:31:00 -
[149]
let's admit it..spying on your neighbor is as old as time itsself..well anyway only reasonable counter to a cloaked ship is constant vigilance..besides that the only ships capable of warping cloaked are frigates and cruisers anyways..not what i'd call a serious threat.
|
SPANKME YARR
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 07:44:00 -
[150]
Probing for cloakers could work, but CCP needs to do/change a few things.
1: How the scanning works. Right if someone scans for you and you warp and get out of warp before the scan finnish he gets a result. This needs fixing. If you warp while a scan is done, the people scanning you should NEVER get a position you. Or you would need to be in the spot for x % of time for them to get a positive result.
2: Cloaking skill will need to get some use.
Decreased chance in getting detected per lvl or you need to spend more time in the safespot before the scanners can get a result. Just an example: With lvl 1 you only need to be in the spot for 20% of the scantime to be detected. At lvl 5 you will need to be there 80-90% of the scantime.
3: The probes scanning for cloakers so they can warp in on top of you need to be visible on the onboard scanner.
|
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 08:15:00 -
[151]
Originally by: PostWithYourMain
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:16:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:08:56 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
Cloaking needs to be fixed?
There was no further word beyond one single statement about the possibility of probing cloaks on TEST.
Leave it alone. Noone promised anything.
Here...have a crunchy biscuit and have some extra cheese for it .
/binds F1-cloak to the chuckle-o-meter
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Ildryn
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 08:34:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Leighanne Edited by: Leighanne on 29/08/2007 01:38:31
If your a pirate and complaining that you can't gank mission runners cause they just SS and afk cloak for an hour till you get bored - cry me a river - your a pirate you deserve to have you gameplay ruined every now and again since you do it to others so often. All part of the game.
Post with your main or stfu
Because a pirate chose the Pirate profession he deserves to be put off ? Risk vs reward dont risk lowsec unless you want the rewards it brings
Nerf all but the Cov-ops cloaks allow them to be scanned down....and stop letting alts post
|
SisterBliss
The Red Exhilez
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 08:51:00 -
[153]
wow so much whining about cloaks, oh noes there's invisible ship unable to attack, warp or move faster than a few m/s which is not doing anything to anyone quick nerf it!!
|
soulstripper
Minmatar Tetranex Consolidated
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 11:25:00 -
[154]
Who gives a sh**.I can't understand ure whine .Cry baby cry
|
zibelthurdos
Archron Dusyfe Industries Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 12:39:00 -
[155]
to the op, i'm a bit confused by your argument and would like clarification on a couple of points
Quote: Well if we want to go the tit-for-tat route to prove points, then what good are warp stabs vs. disrupters?
How about cap boosters vs. neutralizers? or Webifiers vs. MWDs? or TDs vs. Mag field stabs? or Sensor Boosters vs. Remote Dampenors?
All of these have one thing in common, a counter. Should we eliminate all of these items because, heaven forbid, there's a counter? What difference is there between a uncounterable defense and a unstoppable offense? Both are unbalanced...
all four of those items you list also have at least 2 other things in common 1 they require you to be actively engaged in combat to have any effect and 2 they are specifically designed to reduce your ability to attack or defend while actively engaged in combat.
my question is, how does a cloaking device fit either of these criteria? a cloak isn't designed to reduce you ability to attack or defend while actively engaged in combat. in fact a cloaked pilot absolutely cannot engage you in combat while cloaked.
and 2
Quote: Name 1 other utility module in game that directly effects another players play that requires ZERO effort to maintain, with ZERO opportunity to counter it, there is none! And how do they whine and complain when someone points to dev posts and ask why it wasn't put into the patch?!
this also confused me a bit, my question is.. Name 1 other utility module in game that directly effects another players play?
for the life of me i can't see how someone sitting, hidden from view in a safe spot has an effect on you.
----------------------------------------------- I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum" |
Scouteye
Ghost Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 12:42:00 -
[156]
hes an argument for you!
whats the counter to probes............
a CLOAK!
there you go, BALANCE!
jeee wizzz, its not that hard to figure out really!
and a NERF to fitting requirments or effects on your ship IS a counter, hence the changes to NOS, or stopping tanking with cyno ships
train a cloak and fly one for a while, you'll soon see it dont need nerfed.
|
Shiftless
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 12:57:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden Its not an issue, you people are just complaining to complain. You want a way to find people not at the keyboard, and in a weakened state, so you can get an easy kill. AFK cloakers are harmless, they fly 10 m/s - 50 m/s, cannot target, cannot fire, cannot warp (except recons of course).
The penalties to cloaked are already high enough to allow them to sit and float where ever they damn well please. Now, if you want to be able to scan them out, they should be able to target and fire without coming out of cloak.
Ummm... I know I'm stepping into this one a few pages late and all but...
"No."
I fly a Manticore. It move 300m/s uncloaked and close to 500m/s cloaked. I can lock and activate modules as soon as I start the decloak process. I can fit T2 Cruise Missiles.
I like popping haulers, barges and poorly tanked exhumers with one salvo of missiles. The easy way to accomplish this is to jump into a hostile system, safe up, cloak, and go watch a movie. No one can find me, so I am perfectly safe, and I've essentially stopped all industrial production in the system simply because I can warp to an offgrid bookmark at a belt, fly in to w/i 20km of a floating Covetor, and within' 10 seconds put the pilot into his pod, recloak, move away a little, and warp off to another belt.
Yes. Stealthed players are weapons even when they aren't at the keyboard. The stop the industrials from doing what they do because they have zero counter to them. You don't know when they're at the keyboard, you don't know when they're not. You don't know (if they're halfway intelligent) if they're orbiting you at 10km.
Does cloaking need a "nerf"? Nope. It works fine. Do probes need s "buff"? Yup.
Simply put, no one person should be able to use the cloaking device as an "I Win" button.
|
Shiftless
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 12:57:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden Its not an issue, you people are just complaining to complain. You want a way to find people not at the keyboard, and in a weakened state, so you can get an easy kill. AFK cloakers are harmless, they fly 10 m/s - 50 m/s, cannot target, cannot fire, cannot warp (except recons of course).
The penalties to cloaked are already high enough to allow them to sit and float where ever they damn well please. Now, if you want to be able to scan them out, they should be able to target and fire without coming out of cloak.
Ummm... I know I'm stepping into this one a few pages late and all but...
"No."
I fly a Manticore. It move 300m/s uncloaked and close to 500m/s cloaked. I can lock and activate modules as soon as I start the decloak process. I can fit T2 Cruise Missiles.
I like popping haulers, barges and poorly tanked exhumers with one salvo of missiles. The easy way to accomplish this is to jump into a hostile system, safe up, cloak, and go watch a movie. No one can find me, so I am perfectly safe, and I've essentially stopped all industrial production in the system simply because I can warp to an offgrid bookmark at a belt, fly in to w/i 20km of a floating Covetor, and within' 10 seconds put the pilot into his pod, recloak, move away a little, and warp off to another belt.
Yes. Stealthed players are weapons even when they aren't at the keyboard. The stop the industrials from doing what they do because they have zero counter to them. You don't know when they're at the keyboard, you don't know when they're not. You don't know (if they're halfway intelligent) if they're orbiting you at 10km.
Does cloaking need a "nerf"? Nope. It works fine. Do probes need s "buff"? Yup.
Simply put, no one person should be able to use the cloaking device as an "I Win" button.
|
annoing
Amarr MisFunk Inc. Frontline.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 13:21:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:16:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:08:56 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
I'm sorry, did you manage to miss the other 1k+ threads about this?
Nothing wrong here, move along now .. ty
|
Taurequis
Waylander 01
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 13:34:00 -
[160]
Remove,
Local,
Channel.
Problem solved.
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 13:40:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Taurequis Remove,
Local,
Channel.
Problem solved.
ha
ha
ha
no.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 13:48:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 29/08/2007 13:53:44
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
When you actually get a covert ops boat, why don't you come back and let us know how this went.
lol, here we go making ASSumptions. You already lost the argument as soon as you ASSume someone that is almost a year old can't fly a Covert Ops....
Quote:
This is completely false... You can't even scan down a ship without a cloak fitted and lock it if it's warping between safes.
Guess what? I don't care if YOU DO warp between safes, at least I have the satisfaction the player on the other side sees me coming and has put forth some damned effort! I'm not interested in 'nerfing' the mechanic, I want an actual mechanic to exist where one doesn't. CovOps/Recon ships will still enjoy a 100% invulnerability, so long as they maintain the slightest effort in avoidance - that's fair, it's balanced, and it's needed to be done like YESTERDAY.
The post is completely in regards to players who aren't actively avoiding being scanned down. Repeat that to yourself a couple of times, no activity in avoiding being scanned down. If you don't try, you should be found. If you don't at least put some effort into what you're doing, you should be had. There's no reason to allow this un-eve-like activity to continue, and we're fed up with it!
What happened to the patch we were promised? What is the status of this update?
This post remains on page 1 until we hear an answer.
Fine, you don't want to nerf someone at the keyboard. And what of explorers? You know, those people that sit in systems for hours at a time trying to find exploration sites? That can't warp or you ruin your scan? That many times DO NOT use a Covert Ops because they are working solo or in small groups and a Covert Ops cannot survive exploration sites?
And what of those that are using cloaks to actually DO THEIR JOB? YOu know, Intel work? Gathering lists of ships and players, how they react? Where they hang out? You know, the ones that sneak closer to the enemy while under cloak? It IS semi-difficult to actually see what ships the enemy is flying when you are warping between safes. And no, you can't just "OMFG! A probe, lets warp until it goes away" with many probes lasting for over a hour. Since the scanner won't tell you its a Multi-spectral instead of a Spook.
Everyone is whining about the big, bad, evil AFK cloaker that is destroying their Carebear activities and won't let them mine/rat alone in DANGEROUS 0.0 space but a cloak nerf of ANY kind will hurt many legitimate players who don't care what happens in 0.0 and couldn't give a rat's ass about "your" territory.
Play together, defend your people and ADAPT. If you CAN'T defend your people from one cloaked ship then you really should admit to being the carebear you are and move back to Empire. The only reason they are there is because it is effecting you. Deal with it.
Gads, and all these big 0.0 PvPers call US Carebears. Next time don't let them through your gatecamps
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:16:00 -
[163]
cloaking is not a problem, at most it is a nuisance.
the same people that complain about afk cloakers are the same that won't undock with a hostile in system, that don't pvp without a blob blah blah blah. YOU ARE WEAK IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH IT.
quit whining and set a trap, smack the guy, if nothing happens, your carebear self can undock and go about your day.
cloaking is not broken, it works just as it should and was intended to, and has no real reason to change except that the whiners just can't deal with it.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:16:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Play together, defend your people and ADAPT. If you CAN'T defend your people from one cloaked ship then you really should admit to being the carebear you are and move back to Empire. The only reason they are there is because it is effecting you. Deal with it.
Gads, and all these big 0.0 PvPers call US Carebears. Next time don't let them through your gatecamps
Lovely <3. That's really all that needs saying here.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:18:00 -
[165]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 14:19:10
Originally by: Scouteye hes an argument for you!
whats the counter to probes............
a CLOAK!
there you go, BALANCE!
jeee wizzz, its not that hard to figure out really!
and a NERF to fitting requirments or effects on your ship IS a counter, hence the changes to NOS, or stopping tanking with cyno ships
train a cloak and fly one for a while, you'll soon see it dont need nerfed.
PROBING CLOAKS IS NOT A COUNTER TO CLOAKS, IT IS AN I WIN BUTTON AGAINST THEM.
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:24:00 -
[166]
Explain how this is balanced. 8 guys in cloaked ships camp the gate to the 0.0 space that your alliance owns and sits there all day. When they feel like it, they uncloak and blast any ships coming through the gate into your system. Now that they are active and shooting your people you decide to fight back and remove them from their 23/7 gate camp. Oh no, they just cloaked again, I guess they can just go afk until your force leaves then continue to blast people entering the system when you leave. Rinse and repeat. The cloaked ships fight completely on their terms, If they don't feel like fighting they leave their computer, go watch t.v. or play on their other accounts then come back when your gone. The noncloaked ships looking to remove the pests from their systems have no way of engaging the claoked ships, all they can do is camp their gate 23/7, which requires them to be active that entire time at their computers. The cloaked ships however can be afk anytime they feel like it safe and sound until the attackers leave.
Why would it be bad to have probes that can slowly detect where a cloaked ship would be? They would practically be ineffective against a cloaked ship is piloted by someone paiyng half attention and moving their ship around. It would only really be effective against someone afk not moving for hours.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:36:00 -
[167]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Why would it be bad to have probes that can slowly detect where a cloaked ship would be? They would practically be ineffective against a cloaked ship is piloted by someone paiyng half attention and moving their ship around. It would only really be effective against someone afk not moving for hours.
Because probes show the location of the target when the probe ENDS. Meaning even if they were "moving around" you will drop right on top of them and decloak them because they won't get out of de-cloaking range even at full speed. This means that anything but a Covert Ops cloak is now completely ineffective.
If by "moving around" you mean warping between safes, then they can't cloak and warp at the same time unless they are in a covert ops/recon and their combat ability is already seriously hurt.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:42:00 -
[168]
All you ppl that want to probe out cloaked ships...
Say a cloaker is assigned to watch an enemy stargate.. but with your anti-cloak probes.. he keeps getting chased away. Other then monitoring local how is an intel gathering ship supposed to gather intel when he is being constantly chased and cannot sit still for more then 2 minutes w/o having an entire gang warp in on him?
What will you whiners do if the non covops cloaks do get "probable" but you still get cloakers sitting in your system. Going to start the whine about covops cloaks then to get them nerfed.. since you still can't find them?
Just admit the fact that you want to be able to kill cloaking spies at whim.
Remove local and your problems are solved ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:42:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 14:43:32
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Fine, you don't want to nerf someone at the keyboard. And what of explorers? You know, those people that sit in systems for hours at a time trying to find exploration sites? That can't warp or you ruin your scan? That many times DO NOT use a Covert Ops because they are working solo or in small groups and a Covert Ops cannot survive exploration sites?
To use your own future argument: Work as a team. Initiate the scan only with scouts covering your arse and accurate intelligence on the surrounding area. If you're sitting still, carebearing in an area where you're likely to be shot at, then frankly, you deserve to be shot at.
Quote: And what of those that are using cloaks to actually DO THEIR JOB? YOu know, Intel work? Gathering lists of ships and players, how they react?
They would be unaffected, assuming they never sit still for hours at a time and go AFK.
Quote: And no, you can't just "OMFG! A probe, lets warp until it goes away"
Why not? They're hunting you, you have to avoid them or engage them.
Quote: Play together, defend your people and ADAPT. If you CAN'T defend your people from one cloaked ship
...
The OP is about how a defense gang was unable to engage cloaked sniping battleship gangs. How further are they to adapt and work as a team if not to form up a defense gang in response to a hostile incursion? The actual request made is for a method that would require the absolute utmost in teamwork. Cloakers would be difficult to probe, you would land multiple kilometres from their position. You would have to organise your gang into sweeping an area in an attempt to decloak the contact. Any covert ops or recon could warp off or simply fly away. The only ships at actual risk are ships that are AFK, or ships that should not be fitting a cloak - namely cloaking ratting battleships.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:54:00 -
[170]
I'm sorry, did you manage to miss the other 1k+ threads about this?
Nothing wrong here, move along now .. ty
Guessing you didn't see that part about wanting an update?
|
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:54:00 -
[171]
Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!! The amount of carebares in this thread is astonishing, never mind that every one of them is posting with every alt he has.
If this turns into F1-Cloak safe online, or hell used for greffing, the amount of people that will leave will be tremendous not to mention that bad reputation.
The problem now is used and exploited by a few people, but now its becoming the new WCS!! I say nerf it to hell and back it didnÆt make sense before and now its ruining evry pvpers game experience.
I used to hunt people in their home systems in 0.0, I didnÆt care if thy blobbed I gave them respect for that thy put in the effort. Thy warp to POSes its ok they put in the effort.
Now I go a well known alliance or corp deep in 0.0 and best thy do is F1 and smack in local ?! wtf!? Crappie wow mentality, and it will change carebares it will, CCP dose not want a safe game and u aint gona get it.
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:55:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri All you ppl that want to probe out cloaked ships...
Say a cloaker is assigned to watch an enemy stargate.. but with your anti-cloak probes.. he keeps getting chased away. Other then monitoring local how is an intel gathering ship supposed to gather intel when he is being constantly chased and cannot sit still for more then 2 minutes w/o having an entire gang warp in on him?
What will you whiners do if the non covops cloaks do get "probable" but you still get cloakers sitting in your system. Going to start the whine about covops cloaks then to get them nerfed.. since you still can't find them?
Just admit the fact that you want to be able to kill cloaking spies at whim.
Remove local and your problems are solved
Why do all of you use these stupid arguments with no common sense. "oh if there is probes that can find cloaked ships it is too easy cloaks are pointless because this example I'm about to give you that shows how stupid I was and unable to adapt to anything made my cloaked ship easily found"
Probes designed to find cloaked ships would not be easy to use like the probes that are used to find uncloaked ships. They would make it balanced so there is a chance of finding a cloaked ship if you are working together with your gang. Please stop using stupid arguments like it won't work because my stupid reason A combined with my inability to adapt for once since now there is something fair against cloaks.
|
Nicho Void
Gallente Hyper-Nova
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:55:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!!
Stop it. The joke is old. ---------------
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:00:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!! The amount of carebares in this thread is astonishing, never mind that every one of them is posting with every alt he has.
If this turns into F1-Cloak safe online, or hell used for greffing, the amount of people that will leave will be tremendous not to mention that bad reputation.
The problem now is used and exploited by a few people, but now its becoming the new WCS!! I say nerf it to hell and back it didnÆt make sense before and now its ruining evry pvpers game experience.
I used to hunt people in their home systems in 0.0, I didnÆt care if thy blobbed I gave them respect for that thy put in the effort. Thy warp to POSes its ok they put in the effort.
Now I go a well known alliance or corp deep in 0.0 and best thy do is F1 and smack in local ?! wtf!? Crappie wow mentality, and it will change carebares it will, CCP dose not want a safe game and u aint gona get it.
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:24:00 -
[175]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:25:37
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!! The amount of carebares in this thread is astonishing, never mind that every one of them is posting with every alt he has.
If this turns into F1-Cloak safe online, or hell used for greffing, the amount of people that will leave will be tremendous not to mention that bad reputation.
The problem now is used and exploited by a few people, but now its becoming the new WCS!! I say nerf it to hell and back it didnÆt make sense before and now its ruining evry pvpers game experience.
I used to hunt people in their home systems in 0.0, I didnÆt care if thy blobbed I gave them respect for that thy put in the effort. Thy warp to POSes its ok they put in the effort.
Now I go a well known alliance or corp deep in 0.0 and best thy do is F1 and smack in local ?! wtf!? Crappie wow mentality, and it will change carebares it will, CCP dose not want a safe game and u aint gona get it.
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
so for the sake of devils advocate, what happens when recon cruisers are used to launch a probe to find a cloaked player? they can be cloaked and find the cloaker without said person even knowing what was going on. that is is also broken. probing cloaks is an i win button. you talk about balance? probing cloaks makes the module just about useless. now that's unbalancing if i've ever heard it.
every person wanting to be able to probe cloakers wants an easy kill. we can go around in circles with this all day long. one makes since, the other is unbalanced. it's called reason.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:25:00 -
[176]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is.I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears.
seriously, every person who si whining abotu cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. I am sorry to break it to you whining carebears
you can already deal with cloakers, you are just too busy whining about it to have any effect Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Presidente Gallente
Pirate Hunters Inc Exa Nation
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:27:00 -
[177]
My opinion:
probably give a little chance to probe a cloak out BUT with damn high skills for the specific probes then.
But if it's possible to gank players by +10 pilot gate camps it should be fair enough to stay safe by cloaking. There are loads of things in EVE which cause different opinions and a call for nerf. But it's senseless. Live with it and adapt. Even if a cloak could be probed out you can drive the pilots mad by running to 10 SS in a loop.
So say we all!
Pres G +++ JOIN PAP +++ |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:29:00 -
[178]
zomg i just realised warp stabilizers let an afk hauler escape gate camps
NERF WARP STABS Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:30:00 -
[179]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears.
LOL, there were go with the generalizations again.
The vast majority of us don't want to engage AT ALL. A cloak is the only way to avoid engagement and still do things like exploration in LowSec or 0.0 We are still plenty capable of dying whether it is in Gate Camps, getting scanned down while in the exploration site or because we screwed up. Guess what? We even die to PCs and not just NPCs.
You are so concerned about your minor issue, why don't you look at the big picture? You not feeling safe in 0.0 is threatening to nerf entire play-styles that have NOTHING do to with your supposed problem.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:32:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme zomg i just realised warp stabilizers let an afk hauler escape gate camps
NERF WARP STABS
This coming from a guy that has "Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:" in his signature.
WCS were already nerfed, and it was about fracking time. Stay on topic.
Non-covert ops cloaks _DO_ need to be hit with the nerf bat, and hard.
|
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:34:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 29/08/2007 15:33:59 my signature is a parody of someone elses signature, so please explain what relevance it has to anything I post?
other than showing how amazingly witty and awesome I am?
Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:35:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Loyal Servant
Originally by: Tortun Nahme zomg i just realised warp stabilizers let an afk hauler escape gate camps
NERF WARP STABS
This coming from a guy that has "Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:" in his signature.
WCS were already nerfed, and it was about fracking time. Stay on topic.
Non-covert ops cloaks _DO_ need to be hit with the nerf bat, and hard.
why should he stay on topic if you're going to post something completely useless?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:36:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 15:36:27
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby You are so concerned about your minor issue, why don't you look at the big picture? You not feeling safe in 0.0 is threatening to nerf entire play-styles that have NOTHING do to with your supposed problem.
I think you're just ignoring the fact that your profession (solo exploration) is unaffected, just to argue with the big, bad, ebil 0.0 pvpers.
Active covert-ops equipped ships would be nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak. You can still run around in other peoples' territories unhindered, but it allows us (as in those who hold the 0.0 territory) to remove those who linger too long.
Originally by: Presidente Gallente Even if a cloak could be probed out you can drive the pilots mad by running to 10 SS in a loop.
Exactly the idea i have in mind
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:42:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Elmicker
To use your own future argument: Work as a team. Initiate the scan only with scouts covering your arse and accurate intelligence on the surrounding area. If you're sitting still, carebearing solo in an area where you're likely to be shot at, then frankly, you deserve to be shot at.
When is the last time you did any LowSec exploration? EVERY system is under threat of someone interfering. Scouts don't work, docking when a hostile enters system doesn't work, flying in a group CAN work but can also just draw a larger audience. Plus when can spend several hours scanning down a site, its really a lot of fun to have your cover team hanging around doing nothing. So we find the sites, investigate THEN call in the clean up crew.
CLoaks aren't just used to harrass 0.0 Carebears you know, we use them EVERYDAY for non-0.0 activities.
Quote:
They would be unaffected, assuming they never sit still for hours at a time and go AFK.
Wrong. Again, you seem to not understand probes. The probe gives your location AT THE END of the probe cycle. Meaning that the prober knows precisely where you are when he starts his warp. With a Covert Ops you MIGHT be able to get clear without warping away or getting de-cloaked, but anything else no. And if he brings his gang of 5-8 ships they will be spread out enough to almost guarentee decloaking. So yes, even stealthy ships are effected.
Quote:
Why not? They're hunting you, you have to avoid them or engage them.
See that little comment about scans being BROKE when you warp? If you have been trying to get a lock on an exploration site, using short range high strength SHORT DURATION probes and have to keep warping to avoid being scanned yourself, you might as well not do exploration. Try it sometimes, the exploration part.
Probes aren't just for finding ships, you know. There is a whole "profession" that uses them and needs the cloak to survive.
Quote:
The OP is about how a defense gang was unable to engage cloaked sniping battleship gangs. How further are they to adapt and work as a team if not to form up a defense gang in response to a hostile incursion? The actual request made is for a method that would require the absolute utmost in teamwork. Cloakers would be difficult to probe, you would land multiple kilometres from their position. You would have to organise your gang into sweeping an area in an attempt to decloak the contact. Any covert ops or recon could warp off or simply fly away. The only ships at actual risk are ships that are AFK, or ships that should not be fitting a cloak - namely cloaking ratting battleships.
First, if "shouldn't be fitting" is determined by CCP. I don't see any description that says "A ship of XXXX class cannot use a cloak". Actually I see just the opposite: "Can only be fitted to ship of YYY class". Try again. Just because YOU don't think they should be fitting one doesn't make it a legitimate tactic AND module.
But I couldn't care less about what "should" and "shouldn't" be doing it; I care about the fact that your short-sightedness will destroy LowSec exploration and 0.0 activities for smaller groups. The big Corps and Alliances have enough tools to control their area, they don't need to nerf things that have very legitimate uses just because one side-effect is irritating them. This game is NOT completely about what the 0.0 Alliances want, there is more to EvE than being safe in your little kingdom. WE use these tools in ways that have NOTHING to do with your little turf wars, quit trying to screw with our game and think of the bigger picture.
Carebear.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:42:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 15:36:27
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby You are so concerned about your minor issue, why don't you look at the big picture? You not feeling safe in 0.0 is threatening to nerf entire play-styles that have NOTHING do to with your supposed problem.
I think you're just ignoring the fact that your profession (solo exploration) is unaffected, just to argue with the big, bad, ebil 0.0 pvpers.
Active covert-ops equipped ships would be nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak. You can still run around in other peoples' territories unhindered, but it allows us (as in those who hold the 0.0 territory) to remove those who linger too long.
Originally by: Presidente Gallente Even if a cloak could be probed out you can drive the pilots mad by running to 10 SS in a loop.
Exactly the idea i have in mind
regular cloaks should be the "nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak" because they already have downsides to fitting them which makes the ship easier to kill to start with. if you don't want them in your space, bubble the damn gate so you can catch them before they cloak. again, you want it easy.
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:44:00 -
[186]
So what you guys are proposing is that active cloakers fly between safespots just like someone without a cloak has to and that they always stay on the move and don't get near the enemy unless they can use speed to their advantage and possibly kill someone before they warp off again just like someone without a cloak would have to.
Why then would we fit a cloak at all? Where do you see the advantage for a cloaker if he can be found just like someone with no cloak? Did you only look at it from your point of view and forgot everyone else?
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:46:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears.
LOL, there were go with the generalizations again.
The vast majority of us don't want to engage AT ALL. A cloak is the only way to avoid engagement and still do things like exploration in LowSec or 0.0 We are still plenty capable of dying whether it is in Gate Camps, getting scanned down while in the exploration site or because we screwed up. Guess what? We even die to PCs and not just NPCs.
Even with anti-cloak probes, a cloak will still help you avoid engagement. If you want to be completely safe go play in empire. 0.5 and above means concord will protect you, so you should be safe unless your in a freighter.
Quote: You are so concerned about your minor issue, why don't you look at the big picture? You not feeling safe in 0.0 is threatening to nerf entire play-styles that have NOTHING do to with your supposed problem.
It has nothing to do with me feeling "safe" it has to do with me and others being able to fight back against cloaked gangs that sit there all day and harass you in systems you own on the only entrance in and when you try to fight back they simply cloak and are 100% safe. Then when you leave they come out and attack again. You could say will gate camp your system 23/7, but that requires you to be at your computer the whole time playing, whereas the cloakers can just go afk and do other things until you leave.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:49:00 -
[188]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:50:44 someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
EDIT: actually i think you are trully confused. you said "systems you own". it doesn't sound like you own it at all. sounds like you're getting owned.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:49:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Elmicker
I think you're just ignoring the fact that your profession (solo exploration) is unaffected, just to argue with the big, bad, ebil 0.0 pvpers.
No, we would be very seriously effected. Smaller groups/solos do not have the luxioury of constantly changing ships after finding sites, hence we constantly have to use multi-purpose ships in exploration.
Which is why you keep seeing threads about getting exploration ships so that we have something with Astrometrics bonus larger than a tissue-paper frigate.
Quote:
Active covert-ops equipped ships would be nigh on impossible to probe out and decloak. You can still run around in other peoples' territories unhindered, but it allows us (as in those who hold the 0.0 territory) to remove those who linger too long.
Again, the COVERT OPS equiped ships are worthless to a solo/small corp exploration team. Because they CANNOT HELP in the exploration site itself. So most run non-covert ops ships.
Personally I use a Scimitar with 2 rigs for scanning speed bonuses to get a decent time. I can field an acceptable tank, mount the CodeBreakers, Analyzers, probe launchers and STILL mount guns to help after we get into the site. But it cannot mount a Covert Ops cloak, so I would be a sitting duck in LowSec while waiting for probes to finish....
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:52:00 -
[190]
Edited by: VinnyTheBull on 29/08/2007 15:53:49
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
In response to your edit, I do not have this problem in any of the systems my alliance owns. The examples I am referring to were from systems owned by CVA. Cruel Intentions had 23/7 cloaked gate camps there and it was really annoying.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:57:00 -
[191]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:58:59
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully sad is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 15:58:00 -
[192]
What about the possibility to probe out ships not using cov-ops cloaks.. but requiring the coordination of at least 3 probers to triangulate the position.
This would give you anti-cloak whiners more of a way to find non cov-ops cloaks. Would give cloakers more wiggle room with sitting as the enemy would need 3 covops working together dropping probes in specific positions to triangulate the cloakers position but still allow you to track down those nasty AFK cloakers that terrify you so much and cause you such heartache and pain... which is quite extraordinary for someone thats not even paying you any attention.
Again to clarify.. this would NOT effect Cov-Ops 2 cloak in any way. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:02:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 16:04:17
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak.
And someone in your alliance should teach you the meaning of the term "Safe Spot"
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby hence we constantly have to use multi-purpose ships in exploration.
Sucks to be you, then. You're in a smaller, less diverse group. Why shouldn't you be disadvantaged against those who have put effort into securing territory?
Quote: So most run non-covert ops ships.
That's their choice, then. They could find a cov. ops pilot to work with them who doesn't mind not taking part in actual complex. Or, god forbid, sacrifice a combat ship for a dedicated exploration ship.
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Wrong. Again, you seem to not understand probes.
Nor do you. When was the last time you landed 0m from a frigate-sized target when using system-wide probes?
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:02:00 -
[194]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Even with anti-cloak probes, a cloak will still help you avoid engagement. If you want to be completely safe go play in empire. 0.5 and above means concord will protect you, so you should be safe unless your in a freighter.
You DO realize that if you are locked you can't cloak? In LowSec unless you are gate-MWD-CLoaking with a Nano ship a Cloak does nothing to help escape combat once someone has found you.
PS-Yes, I live in Empire. I go to LowSec for Exploration and fun. I have no interest in 0.0 politics and even less over the last few months when I keep reading 0.0 Corps/Alliances WHINING about things when we are told to deal with other issues. Like freighter ganking, since you mentioned it. We are told what? Oh yeah, DEAL WITH IT and FLY WITH FRIENDS.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with me feeling "safe" it has to do with me and others being able to fight back against cloaked gangs that sit there all day and harass you in systems you own on the only entrance in and when you try to fight back they simply cloak and are 100% safe. Then when you leave they come out and attack again. You could say will gate camp your system 23/7, but that requires you to be at your computer the whole time playing, whereas the cloakers can just go afk and do other things until you leave.
So? Bait them. Draw them out. Have your ships sitting a jump or two away, use log in traps, etc. Get them to engage with a juicy target that has a tank fitted and keep them locked for a whole 45 seconds while the rest of the fleet logs in/jumps in. Once you LOCK them they cannot cloak. If they succeed in getting cloaked then warp you Domi there and deploy drones, you will get close enough to decloak them.
Perfect? No, of course not. But neither is destroying a module because you can't adapt.
Incidently, I have more sympathy for you with cloaked BSs at your gates than I do for the OP's comment about not being able to rat/mine safely. Gads, we can't even rat or mine safely in EMPIRE, HIGH SEC space. And we are told? DEAL WITH IT.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:05:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby hence we constantly have to use multi-purpose ships in exploration.
Sucks to be you, then. You're in a smaller, less diverse group. Why shouldn't you be disadvantaged against those who have put effort into securing territory?
LOL
In this case I would say it sucks to be you That the best you can come up with? That we aren't playing the game right and we are working inside the game mechanics doing LEGITIMATE things that CCP WANTS us to do?
So again, the 0.0 Carebears thinks that just because something annoys THEM it should be nerfed, regardless of the rest of its value.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:08:00 -
[196]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully said is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
lol this isn't an alt it is my main. Okay, I'll applogize for the carebear statement but still your point doesn't work. If they know you have an inty standing by they simply won't risk decloaking anyway. Trust me I have been through months of being harassed by gate cloakers, they have some basic brain intelligence besides telling their pointer finger to press F1. They know not to uncloak if there is an interceptor. They usually warp to safe spots the instant their alt cloaked on the other side of the gate spying sees an interceptor warp into the system they are gate camping in.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:08:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs
And someone in your alliance should teach you the meaning of the term "Safe Spot"
first of all, i don't know what the meaning of "safe spot" has to do with what i said.
but if i take it as you want the argument to move in the direction of talking about safespots we get back to where we where a few pages ago. ....and since you can already probe a ship down that is in one, it makes cloaks useless if you can still probe them.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:08:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Elmicker
Nor do you. When was the last time you landed 0m from a frigate-sized target when using system-wide probes?
We are hardly talking about frigate-sized targets are we? Even in the much toted dev comments posted earlier they specifically said Cover Ops ships and those using Covert Ops cloaks would NOT be effected
So you wouldn't get your wish anyways, even if CCP had put that nerf in. You would never know if it was a Covert Ops/Recon sitting 100km from you or a cloaked BS sitting 60 AU from you. All it would do is nerf US, and you would still be afraid to rat or mine in your system.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:09:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 16:11:06
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby That we aren't playing the game right and we are working inside the game mechanics doing LEGITIMATE things that CCP WANTS us to do?
The territory holders have also worked within the game mechanics. They have put more time and effort on the line. As this game is supposedly all about risk vs. reward, they have more at risk, so should have more reward. And they do. They have the luxury of having readily-available defense forces and the ability to change ships and adapt to situations at will. If you don't want to take the territory you're operating in, then you should be at a very severe disadvantage. If, because of this disadvantage, you choose not to use the specialised tool for the job (the cov. ops cloak), then you shouldn't be *****ing about it. He's *****ing about how his proto-cloak fitted scimitar will be nerfed to oblivion, when he could just get over himself and fly a covert ops frigate or recon cruiser, and be totally safe, no matter the nerf.
Originally by: sharkyballs but if i take it as you want the argument to move in the direction of talking about safespots we get back to where we where a few pages ago. ....and since you can already probe a ship down that is in one, it makes cloaks useless if you can still probe them.
No, it makes cloaks less useful if you insist on staying stationary in a safe spot when you know the enemy is scanning for you. It goes from instant omg i-win invulnerability button to a minor risk that could be avoided by a trained monkey.
|
Flinx Evenstar
Minmatar Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:09:00 -
[200]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull The examples I am referring to were from systems owned by CVA. Cruel Intentions had 23/7 cloaked gate camps there and it was really annoying.
That was so last week
The one thing people here have forgot when it comes to the anti cloak probes is...what would their range be. Since you can't see the target on scan, you have no idea where to drop the probe
I, erm, like kill things and stuff |
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:10:00 -
[201]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully said is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
lol this isn't an alt it is my main. Okay, I'll applogize for the carebear statement but still your point doesn't work. If they know you have an inty standing by they simply won't risk decloaking anyway. Trust me I have been through months of being harassed by gate cloakers, they have some basic brain intelligence besides telling their pointer finger to press F1. They know not to uncloak if there is an interceptor. They usually warp to safe spots the instant their alt cloaked on the other side of the gate spying sees an interceptor warp into the system they are gate camping in.
so are you changing your story now? to being mad that you've been outsmarted? still sound's like a whine to me.
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:11:00 -
[202]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull when you try to fight back they simply cloak and are 100% safe. Then when you leave they come out and attack again.
beeep beep beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
My BS detector just went off. You can not cloak when target locked.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:14:00 -
[203]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 16:14:35
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Since you can't see the target on scan, you have no idea where to drop the probe
This is part of the balance of the probes. You would not be able to instantly switch to 5AU probes for an exact location, rather you would have to spend several minutes working your way down through the probes.
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou
Originally by: VinnyTheBull when you try to fight back they simply cloak and are 100% safe. Then when you leave they come out and attack again.
My BS detector just went off. You can not cloak when target locked.
Fighting back does not mean actually shooting at the target. Fighting back includes the whole process of laying traps and forming defense gangs. Don't twist his words beyond their literal meaning.
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:14:00 -
[204]
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou
Originally by: VinnyTheBull when you try to fight back they simply cloak and are 100% safe. Then when you leave they come out and attack again.
beeep beep beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
My BS detector just went off. You can not cloak when target locked.
No it didn't. It is simple really, they attack only if it is an easy target they can kill quickly. When you form up a gang to go after their cloaking gang they simple do not uncloak anymore. Hence, when you try to fight back they are already cloaked and you can't fight them again. Stop trying to find little holes to try to make it seem like cloak is 100% fine. It is not. The people that cloak are not 100% idiots. They know they can't cloak when locked.
|
VinnyTheBull
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:16:00 -
[205]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: sharkyballs someone should tell vinnythebull that if you come within 2000m of a cloaker, he will decloak. it should be real easy to find a bunch of cloakers off a stargate if you use your head instead of your whine.
Wow you must be an empire carebear who never set foot in 0.0. Why would a cloaking sniping gang be close enough to the gate to where you could bump them? They will all be spread out 150km+ from the gate and 100+km from eachother. Your not going to bump them sorry silly carebear. They will warp off if anything.
it's called an interceptor. use it. you can watch them cloak if you know they are there. it's not hard. cloaked ships move very very slow.
what's trully said is that you have to insult me with a empire carebear statement to make your point look valid. look at my ticker, i havn't docked in a station in 3 weeks. i don't see anything from you but someone hiding behind an alt.
lol this isn't an alt it is my main. Okay, I'll applogize for the carebear statement but still your point doesn't work. If they know you have an inty standing by they simply won't risk decloaking anyway. Trust me I have been through months of being harassed by gate cloakers, they have some basic brain intelligence besides telling their pointer finger to press F1. They know not to uncloak if there is an interceptor. They usually warp to safe spots the instant their alt cloaked on the other side of the gate spying sees an interceptor warp into the system they are gate camping in.
so are you changing your story now? to being mad that you've been outsmarted? still sound's like a whine to me.
How has my story changed? Why are all of you acting like this? Do you scan every single letter of every post trying to find a hole that you can open to make it seem like we know not what we speak of? It is pathetic stop it grow up seriously lol. I can't believe you people. It is kind of funny though I guess, I'll be back to argue with you in a little bit if this is still carrying on.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:21:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Elmicker
The territory holders have also worked within the game mechanics. They have put more time and effort on the line. As this game is supposedly all about risk vs. reward, they have more at risk, so should have more reward. And they do. They have the luxury of having readily-available defense forces and the ability to change ships and adapt to situations at will. If you don't want to take the territory you're operating in, then you should be at a very severe disadvantage. If, because of this disadvantage, you choose not to use the specialised tool for the job (the cov. ops cloak), then you shouldn't be *****ing about it. He's *****ing about how his proto-cloak fitted scimitar will be nerfed to oblivion, when he could just get over himself and fly a covert ops frigate or recon cruiser, and be totally safe, no matter the nerf.
No, I'm complaining that EVERY exploration-fitted vessel capable of actually doing exploration in LowSec will be nerfed. We HAVE no "specialized" tools for the job; we have a couple of frigates that don't have enough grid to mount the tools needed. Show me a ship that has a bonus to Astrometrics that can do the following:
1) Fit a Scan Launcher, Code Breaker and Analyzer. 2) Carry enough probes OF EACH TYPE to scan down harder complexes when you don't know which type you are going to find. 3) Mount a tank for assisting in cleaning it out. 4) Mount weapons for assisting in cleaning it out.
Answer? None. Go read the Missions and Explorations or Suggestions forums, there are many posts actually ASKING for dedicated exploration ships. Right now we have none.
Those of us doing exploration are at constant risk from both NPCs and PCs. Cloaks decrease but do not eliminate that risk.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:24:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby 1) Fit a Scan Launcher, Code Breaker and Analyzer. 2) Carry enough probes OF EACH TYPE to scan down harder complexes when you don't know which type you are going to find. 3) Mount a tank for assisting in cleaning it out. 4) Mount weapons for assisting in cleaning it out.
A gang?
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:25:00 -
[208]
Edited by: cuteboylookingatyou on 29/08/2007 16:26:00
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
No it didn't. It is simple really, they attack only if it is an easy target they can kill quickly. When you form up a gang to go after their cloaking gang they simple do not uncloak anymore. Hence, when you try to fight back they are already cloaked and you can't fight them again. Stop trying to find little holes to try to make it seem like cloak is 100% fine. It is not. The people that cloak are not 100% idiots. They know they can't cloak when locked.
So don't give them these targets. Give protection to your defenseless members.
This is 0.0 and it is harsh so protect them. I pay for the harshness with my cloak. When I uncloak you can lock me and I have a useless slot unless I can break your lock or kill you.
Oh and please snip for the readers sake.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:29:00 -
[209]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 29/08/2007 16:29:14
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby 1) Fit a Scan Launcher, Code Breaker and Analyzer. 2) Carry enough probes OF EACH TYPE to scan down harder complexes when you don't know which type you are going to find. 3) Mount a tank for assisting in cleaning it out. 4) Mount weapons for assisting in cleaning it out.
A gang?
Already explained in several posts (notice the ASSIST in points 3-4); we do once the site is actually found.
Your excuse for not using one to protect your defenseless ships Carebearing away?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:31:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Already explained in several posts; we do once the site is actually found.
Alright. So why're you complaining? find the site with a covert and then bring in the gang. Covert is safe as they're still near-untouchable post-nerf and the gang can be scouted for.
Quote: Your excuse for not using one to protect your defenseless ships Carebearing away?
Well, aside from the fact this has nothing to do with me...
1) No ship should be carebearing with hostiles within 3 jumps, defense gang or no 2) How are we supposed to kill someone we cannot find?
|
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:34:00 -
[211]
The most amusing thing so far has been the empire dwellers and carebars, who seriously have no idea about PVP and 0.0, giving us the littlie tips that they read from the last carebare defending clocks on how to find cloakersà..and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
I mean no disrespect any one can find a cloaker who just jumped or camping a gate ôwith limitsö, but try finding some one that SS. Sheesh if u donÆt know what your talking about STFU and GTFO!
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:35:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
Actually, the worst bit about that one is that the one who suggested that is part of a "major" 0.0 alliance
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:40:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Sir Scorpion and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
Actually, the worst bit about that one is that the one who suggested that is part of a "major" 0.0 alliance
With all do respect for his alliance some gave me good fights around their and hell it was fun and respect to them, but seriously some his alliance was prolly some of the worst cloakers I saw so far. But at least he posts with his main .
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:42:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion The most amusing thing so far has been the empire dwellers and carebars, who seriously have no idea about PVP and 0.0, giving us the littlie tips that they read from the last carebare defending clocks on how to find cloakersà..and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
I mean no disrespect any one can find a cloaker who just jumped or camping a gate ôwith limitsö, but try finding some one that SS. Sheesh if u donÆt know what your talking about STFU and GTFO!
Personally I don't care about finding a cloaked gang at my gate (if I had one) and fully admit that I wouldn't even try. But you are trying to destroy modules that have uses far beyond your little problem, which does concern me.
To ME exploration is a lot more important than your issues with people attacking you in "your" territory. I have no territory, everyone is hostile to me. Hence you are trying to destroy my way of life while making yours easier.
I understand your concerns with defending your territory, but nerfing this module more than it already is won't "fix" that. Do as other suggestions have been brought forward and tie your ability to find hostiles to a POS-based sensor array which power is based on Soverienity level and I will fully support it. Just don't screw the rest of us over.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:49:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Sir Scorpion on 29/08/2007 16:49:51
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
To ME exploration is a lot more important than your issues with people attacking you in "your" territory. I have no territory, everyone is hostile to me. Hence you are trying to destroy my way of life while making yours easier.
I understand your concerns with defending your territory, but nerfing this module more than it already is won't "fix" that. Do as other suggestions have been brought forward and tie your ability to find hostiles to a POS-based sensor array which power is based on Soverienity level and I will fully support it. Just don't screw the rest of us over.
So your one of the I want to make a billion isks without risk, well ur on top of the list why cloaking needs to be nerfed and you Proved it buddy, u want to be safe stay in empire!!! Its really that simple.
My job is exploration thatÆs how I pay my bills and I do it in the toughest regions, and I have no territory, I roam all of 0.0 and be ina different place evry week. Only cloak I have is a covert ops, and I never ever fitting a cloak on any thing other than a covert ops or a recon ship.
So no dude your point only validates why cloaks need to be nerfed, since its people like you who chose the easy way out, that are cutting from my exploration profits. And dude so far didnÆt lose a single ship for exploration I made lots and lots of isks
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:52:00 -
[216]
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 15:25:37
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Omg did I log into hello kitty online?!! The amount of carebares in this thread is astonishing, never mind that every one of them is posting with every alt he has.
If this turns into F1-Cloak safe online, or hell used for greffing, the amount of people that will leave will be tremendous not to mention that bad reputation.
The problem now is used and exploited by a few people, but now its becoming the new WCS!! I say nerf it to hell and back it didnÆt make sense before and now its ruining evry pvpers game experience.
I used to hunt people in their home systems in 0.0, I didnÆt care if thy blobbed I gave them respect for that thy put in the effort. Thy warp to POSes its ok they put in the effort.
Now I go a well known alliance or corp deep in 0.0 and best thy do is F1 and smack in local ?! wtf!? Crappie wow mentality, and it will change carebares it will, CCP dose not want a safe game and u aint gona get it.
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
so for the sake of devils advocate, what happens when recon cruisers are used to launch a probe to find a cloaked player? they can be cloaked and find the cloaker without said person even knowing what was going on. that is is also broken. probing cloaks is an i win button. you talk about balance? probing cloaks makes the module just about useless. now that's unbalancing if i've ever heard it.
every person wanting to be able to probe cloakers wants an easy kill. we can go around in circles with this all day long. one makes since, the other is unbalanced. it's called reason.
Well... firstly if they're not within 5 AU of the target, you're not getting a WTZ fix. I would suspect those trying to hunt you down would continue to use the directional finder for the most part because it's faster than scan probes, if you're not cloaked. If the person isn't using a ship with bonus's to scan time, then I believe it would be around 1 minute with good skills to have your first hit, if you're within 20 AU. If you're cloaked, and you're not within 20 AU from ANY planet in system, then that's it - game over for 99% of the probing individuals out there - they can spend all day and never find you. If you're over 40 AU from any planet, you're home free.
These things require effort, require knowledge of scanning, hiding, etc. Right now as is, people are fitting cloaking modules and it's like a free lunch, they don't have to take time to learn anything. No effort required at all to be 100% invincible, no player skill involved...
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:54:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion
So your one of the I want to make a billion isks without risk, well ur on top of the list why cloaking needs to be nerfed and you Proved it buddy, u want to be safe stay in empire!!! Its really that simple.
*blink* where did that come from? Lets see, my wallet between all my characters..... 425M.
Yep, I make BILLIONS in Empire Guess what? I don't get 10/10 complexes permanently in my backyard (too bad they are gone now?), I don't get 1.5M triple-BS rats in my belts (try 166k) and I don't have gate camps between me and those that would do me harm.
Yep, I have it sooooooo easy.
Quote:
My job is exploration thatÆs how I pay my bills and I do it in the toughest regions, and I have no territory, I roam all of 0.0 and be ina different place evry week. Only cloak I have is a covert ops, and I never ever fitting a cloak on any thing other than a covert ops or a recon ship.
So no dude your point only validates why cloaks need to be nerfed, since its people like you who chose the easy way out, that are cutting from my exploration profits. And dude so far didnÆt lose a single ship for exploration I made lots and lots of isks
I'm happy for you, and your success in 0.0 effects my success or concerns in LowSec exactly how?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:54:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 16:55:03
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby To ME exploration is a lot more important than your issues with people attacking you in "your" territory. I have no territory
You assume that everyone opposed to you must automatically be a 0.0 carebear. Would it help to know that my current occupation is harassing others in npc 0.0? Or that at this very moment, as i type this post, i'm scouting for someone moving their heavy hitter to an exploration plex after scouting it with a cov. ops? You're talking *******s and refuse to even think about changing your ways, even though, all you want to do is stay 100% safe and make as much money as you can with as little effort as you can. Stick to high sec. It seems to be suited to your tastes.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:54:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:16:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:08:56 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
A player who's docked and completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
There's not counter for that either Point being. Don't fix what isn't broken
Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right
|
Firkragg
Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:01:00 -
[220]
As ive said before im fine with the way that cloaks work. What im not happy with is the fact you can fit a cloak on pretty much any ship in eve with very little downside. ould do with making heftier penaltys for fitting cloaks on ships that dont need to cloak as part of thier role.
|
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:04:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Elmicker
You assume that everyone opposed to you must automatically be a 0.0 carebear. Would it help to know that my current occupation is harassing others in npc 0.0? Or that at this very moment, as i type this post, i'm scouting for someone moving their heavy hitter to an exploration plex after scouting it with a cov. ops? You're talking *******s and refuse to even think about changing your ways, even though, all you want to do is stay 100% safe and make as much money as you can with as little effort as you can. Stick to high sec. It seems to be suited to your tastes.
Other than it is YOU that is trying to nerf other people because you can't deal with something. If I can't deal with them or find them I go away.
Who isn't changing their ways and adapting? Who wants to be 100% safe doing their Carebear activities? Who has been whining that they can't do something because someone might attack them?
I run gate camps of hostiles to get where I want. Have I griped to have them nerfed? I deal with PC Pirates trying to kill me. Have I griped to have them nerfed? I deal with doing dangerous activities in dangerous space and no one to support me. Have I griped to make my life safer?
Who is the Carebear that should "go back to Empire", me or the OP?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:07:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Who wants to be 100% safe doing their Carebear activities? Who has been whining that they can't do something because someone might attack them?
If you can find one instance of me citing either of those things, then you deserve a really sodding big cookie. My reasoning for the nerf is finding (and killing) cloaked farmer ravens. It just has the added bonus of kicking AFK-cloakers in the ****, too. Your reasoning for whining against the change is so that you can stay 100% safe in your own little bubble. Mine is to find and kill people. There's a world of difference.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:08:00 -
[223]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 29/08/2007 17:08:47 /Looks at the thread again and slices more cheese and nibbles for the whine buffet
*F1* to watch the dog continue to chase it's tail
Nothing broken. Nothing to fix.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:13:00 -
[224]
Anyone who complains about cloaks obviously doesn't live with small children. In the absence of a pause button, fitting a cloaking device is the only way one can play in low/zero, so that when the alarm sounds you can hit a Safe and be reasonably safe until you get back.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:15:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Alz Shado Anyone who complains about cloaks obviously doesn't live with small children. In the absence of a pause button, fitting a cloaking device is the only way one can play in low/zero, so that when the alarm sounds you can hit a Safe and be reasonably safe until you get back.
You could just log off.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:16:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Elmicker
If you can find one instance of me citing either of those things, then you deserve a really sodding big cookie. My reasoning for the nerf is finding (and killing) cloaked farmer ravens. It just has the added bonus of kicking AFK-cloakers in the ****, too. Your reasoning for whining against the change is so that you can stay 100% safe in your own little bubble. Mine is to find and kill people. There's a world of difference.
Nor was I specifically talking about you. But re-read the OP....
Farmer Ravens are a whole different story, but again it is NOT against the rules for them to "farm" belts. Now if you can link them to ISK selling and get that information to CCP you might be able to get them banned. But don't try to nerf my occupation in the process.
I have no desire to be 100% safe, that is people like the OP. I want a chance to do CCP's intention for the future: Exploration is being the basis of almost everything including just normal mining and ratting. What you propose will make LowSec even emptier and wasteful of database space than it already is. Take away one safety net and it dries up even further; just look what happened when they nerfed WCS.
As for "protecting" your space, I would not be adverse to having the system tied to Soverienity, like I mentioned. You should be happy with that thought as previously I was against even that but in the last few weeks I can see the valid point there
By the way, have you ever considered that 0.0 politics is part of the reason that the cloaked-ratter problem even exists? If the major Alliances were more open to letting non-blue players into their areas then more people would be in those systems, and those ratters wouldn't know who is going to kill them hence would leave. Maybe if you weren't over extended and didn't have so many empty systems this wouldn't be a problem....
Now I've wasted enough time arguing, back to work
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:21:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
A player who's docked and completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
There's not counter for that either Point being. Don't fix what isn't broken
Are your seriously with MC ?!?!, I mean really dude wtf !! u know that:
1: thy cant dock at 0.0 stations and If so itÆs the corp/alliance problem.
2:if your hunting for them and u know thy are in station I guess U CAMP THE STATION!!! And I have seen MC do that with bubbles and interdictors and all of them know that, how did u get into MC??!
3: if he is in ur station, dock and wait for him to leave the station via the gest viewà.ur seriously in MC right?
Dude I donÆt know what to say after seeing a respectable hardcore pvp alliance posting such weak discussions!!
But if youÆre an empire builder industrial than I rest my case
|
Kolwrath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:29:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion Edited by: Sir Scorpion on 29/08/2007 16:37:22 The most amusing thing so far has been the empire dwellers and carebars, who seriously have no idea about PVP and 0.0, giving us the littlie tips that they read from the last carebare defending clocks on how to find cloakersà..and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good fracking luck I would love to see you do that.
<SNIP>
Thats why I dont see the point of probing ... Assuming CCP did something that let you probe down a cloaker, your going to warp to empty space. You will then have to troll that 1000x1000x1000km space and luck into getting within 2000km of him to delcloak him. Without a point of reference like a grid or something with which to base a three dimensional search pattern, that is going to be more or less impossible.
To me that just shows how little these nerf-cloak guys can actually think.
|
vipeer
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:49:00 -
[229]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull Explain how this is balanced. 8 guys in cloaked ships camp the gate to the 0.0 space that your alliance owns and sits there all day. When they feel like it, they uncloak and blast any ships coming through the gate into your system. Now that they are active and shooting your people you decide to fight back and remove them from their 23/7 gate camp. Oh no, they just cloaked again, I guess they can just go afk until your force leaves then continue to blast people entering the system when you leave. Rinse and repeat. The cloaked ships fight completely on their terms, If they don't feel like fighting they leave their computer, go watch t.v. or play on their other accounts then come back when your gone. The noncloaked ships looking to remove the pests from their systems have no way of engaging the claoked ships, all they can do is camp their gate 23/7, which requires them to be active that entire time at their computers. The cloaked ships however can be afk anytime they feel like it safe and sound until the attackers leave.
Why would it be bad to have probes that can slowly detect where a cloaked ship would be? They would practically be ineffective against a cloaked ship is piloted by someone paiyng half attention and moving their ship around. It would only really be effective against someone afk not moving for hours.
I will assume you had lots of problems with Terra Incognita as they are known to do what youre describing.
Effective counters exist but i am not going to tell you what they are. Find them by yourself. Chaining BoBo in south Feyth:
Your Neutron Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Dukath [EVOL]<BOB>(Vindicator), wrecking for 741.0 damage. |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:50:00 -
[230]
First, cloaks and anti-cloaking mechanics aren't necessarily "broken". There are many ways to handle the situation, I feel the situation is not handled perfectly to my liking.
The "threat" that cloaks can provide, is seeming not thought of by many posters or willfully ignored.
This "threat" is one of false delivered intelligence by way of local by means of:
1) Cloaking then going AFK. By doing this without being physically at the keyboard you are forcing intelligent residents of the system to act as if there is a hostile waiting to ambush someone (because as far as they know, there is). The main damage is done to ratting and logistic type of actions by either forcing said ships to bring gang mates for protection or other action causing less ISK to be made per hour (which is the primary cause for ratting and logistics).
2) After sitting in a system AFK for many many hours, the cloaker can come back and suprise attack any in the system who have convinced themselves that your ship has been AFK and is no threat. The actions that led the ships in system to let their guard down were accomplished by the cloaker while completely away physically from the game.
Both these consequences can cause much loss for the target system. You cannot ignore that this is a threat that can be caused by AFK cloakers. You can have the opinion that such results should be able to be brought about by players that are not really playing the game.
I however do not share that opinion. I feel these tactics are absolutely valid if accomplished by someone that stays in game and has the patience to see it through. The fact that someone can do this while AFK is the part I don't agree with.
So please, don't insult everyones' intelligence with the "the cloaker is AFK, so obviously he can have no negative impact on anyone else etc etc." argument.
Either you agree that AFK players should be allowed to change the playstyle of their hostiles or you don't. No way to win this arguement, but if you don't agree, at least don't hide the bare facts of the situation.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 17:58:00 -
[231]
You dont actually know if he is afk or not. He may simply be watching and not responding. It is a valid tactic to wait for hours watching your opponent waiting for them to move. This does happen in modern combat in real life also although they would use natural concealment rather than a device but the principle is the same.
Cloaking is fine and should be left well alone.
www.eve-players.com |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:00:00 -
[232]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 18:00:15
Originally by: Kolwrath To me that just shows how little these nerf-cloak guys can actually think.
lol.
When you probe down anyone, you're given an accuracy measure, which gives you a rough idea of distance. Your direction of warp-in will give you a rough direction to fly towards to find them, but you'll likely land 50km or so away, so the cone you'd have to cover is quite large. As such it'd require teams of ships and drones to sweep the area effectively. Because of this, only ships who are AFK are at risk, as anyone with half a brain will just go straight down, as even at 10m/s, you'd probably get away.
|
Jensen Blayloc
Minmatar Galtech Security Services
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:03:00 -
[233]
Simple. Get rid of Local. Then you won't have false intel.
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:05:00 -
[234]
I think cloaking devices shoul give you more power. If you are cloaked you should be able to read local but you shouldnt be visible in local.
www.eve-players.com |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:06:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc Simple. Get rid of Local. Then you won't have false intel.
No - you'll have no intel. Oh how fun that'd be.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:12:00 -
[236]
Originally by: ViolenTUK You dont actually know if he is afk or not. He may simply be watching and not responding. It is a valid tactic to wait for hours watching your opponent waiting for them to move. This does happen in modern combat in real life also although they would use natural concealment rather than a device but the principle is the same.
Cloaking is fine and should be left well alone.
True, and I actually stated that exact thing in my previous post. It's the fact that they can accomplish the same result by being AFK. I don't have all the answers as far as acceptable changes to remedy that though.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:15:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc Simple. Get rid of Local. Then you won't have false intel.
That might work. I have no way to tell if this would improve the game or not to my liking. Mainly because I don't want to take the time to search out all possible ramifications of a change like this. I'd be OK with a test on sisi to see how people like it.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:15:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc Simple. Get rid of Local. Then you won't have false intel.
No - you'll have no intel. Oh how fun that'd be.
Intel should come from players in covops gathering it.. not from a handy chat window that autoupdates ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:18:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Intel should come from players in covops gathering it.. not from a handy chat window that autoupdates
Yeah, and we shouldn't be able to go several thousand times faster than light. However, the fact that a game requires at least a modicum of fun demands that we do.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:21:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Intel should come from players in covops gathering it.. not from a handy chat window that autoupdates
Yeah, and we shouldn't be able to go several thousand times faster than light. However, the fact that a game requires at least a modicum of fun demands that we do.
Also the fact that Jump Gates could log incomming and outgoing ships seems like an acceptable backstory for how you get your local intel. Doesn't explain logged ships dissapearing though, so I guess it isn't perfect.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:28:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 18:28:21
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc no explaination.
It's explained in the backstory.
Quote: The game would be much more tactical, much more interesting if local was gone, and players had to rely on their wits and their skills, their modules and their friends to survive in low-sec and 0.0.
Oh yeah, sure it'd be tactical and interesting. That is, of course, if you find spending 12 hours at a time scouring every system in eve to find even a single target, and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
However, we're getting off the point. Which is cloaks need a counter.
|
Poe
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:33:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Poe on 29/08/2007 18:33:43 People should be banding together for safety in lo-sec. They should not have perfect intel to simply hit a station when someone comes into the system. Just because you need training wheels sweatheart, doesn't mean the rest of us want them.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:33:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Elmicker , and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:42:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Nor was I specifically talking about you. But re-read the OP....
Farmer Ravens are a whole different story, but again it is NOT against the rules for them to "farm" belts. Now if you can link them to ISK selling and get that information to CCP you might be able to get them banned. But don't try to nerf my occupation in the process.
I have no desire to be 100% safe, that is people like the OP. I want a chance to do CCP's intention for the future: Exploration is being the basis of almost everything including just normal mining and ratting. What you propose will make LowSec even emptier and wasteful of database space than it already is. Take away one safety net and it dries up even further; just look what happened when they nerfed WCS.
As for "protecting" your space, I would not be adverse to having the system tied to Soverienity, like I mentioned. You should be happy with that thought as previously I was against even that but in the last few weeks I can see the valid point there
By the way, have you ever considered that 0.0 politics is part of the reason that the cloaked-ratter problem even exists? If the major Alliances were more open to letting non-blue players into their areas then more people would be in those systems, and those ratters wouldn't know who is going to kill them hence would leave. Maybe if you weren't over extended and didn't have so many empty systems this wouldn't be a problem....
Now I've wasted enough time arguing, back to work
What are you talking about? You state that I want to be 100% safe and then go off on some low-sec tangent about how you won't be able to do exploration and mining? Give me a break buddy.
If you actually read my post you'd see that my original post states the issue at hand is the imbalance that's presented when a player is cloaked, and does nothing, to avoid combat at the expense of a limitless effort to initiate contact.
THAT is wrong, there's no balance in this, but that doesn't mean we have the other side of the spectrum and say, "All you need to do is pop a scanner in a ship and man it's fat targets all day long!!!".
If cloaked ships were able to be scanned down right now, it wouldn't take much effort to avoid being found if you just did SOMETHING. This in itself leads me to believe that currently it would be balanced as soon as the switch is turned on. You have fat slower ships that would have a rougher time at avoiding, all the way down to quick nimble ships that would still be 100% invincible.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:43:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Poe They should not have perfect intel to simply hit a station when someone comes into the system.
Why not?
It increases the pace of the game. Requiring everyone to gather every single ounce of intel means we'll see loltastically huge blobs. Or, we'd see the game collapse as people simple can't be arsed putting that amount of effort in when there's the lure of easy money in empire lvl 4s.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:45:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Sir Scorpion and Idiot is telling me to use an inty to find a cloaked GANG in a minimum grid of 1000X1000X1000KMà..wow good racking luck I would love to see you do that.
Actually, the worst bit about that one is that the one who suggested that is part of a "major" 0.0 alliance
it's sad to see you simply insult me, especially after you didn't follow the conversation. you call me an idiot, but what you just did actually shows your own lack wisdom.
the inty part was because he saw a gang of snipers at the gate, 150km off, even if it's only a few ships an inty has a very good chance of bumping them since it can reach them in a matter of seconds, uncloaking them, and likewise finding the cloaked sniper. you don't need the whole grid, just half a brain and little work ethic.
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:46:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Elmicker , and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
Funny... your post got ignored.
I found this quore from the last page rather fitting "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:59:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Elmicker , and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
Nothing to do what this post is about.
Go read the OP.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:01:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
No. What they shout is "ADAPT OR DIE, U FKIN CAREBEAR NUBZ". I don't think you understand how big the blobs would be if we had no intel at all, or how rapid the collapse of all 0.0 infrastructure would be. You would have to track every movement in and out of every single gate in every single system you might ever operate in, or you risk being logonski'd or jumped by a large gang of recons. The risk would be astronomical. Aside from that, finding anyone to shoot at would just be a *****. Everyone would just gatecamp the pipes. It'd be the end of the roaming gang.
It's the same effect as the afk cloaker, magnified to infinity and applied to every system in the game. Fun, fun, fun.
i do have to say that was a very nice rant but it didn't make much since. what it sounded like you just said was that afk cloakers are going to collapse all 0.0 infrastructure. or you compaired it to something like no local chat that would callapse it all? didn't at the top of the page you say something about me being in a major alliance and quoting someone calling ME and idiot?
hey pot, you know what to call the kettle don't you?
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:03:00 -
[250]
here is the compromise
they get their whine
we keep our cheese
Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:04:00 -
[251]
Originally by: sharkyballs i do have to say that was a very nice rant but it didn't make much since.
Didn't make much since when?
Quote: what it sounded like you just said was that afk cloakers are going to collapse all 0.0 infrastructure.
No. I said that removing local would collapse 0.0 infrastructure, as it would have the same effect as an AFK cloaker (indefinite, unidentified, unquantifiable hostile) in EVERY system.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:05:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc Edited by: Jensen Blayloc on 29/08/2007 18:30:20 I was just going to pop in, make the statement and wander off. But since you seem interested. It would be a lot of fun. Local is the complete bane of PvP in this game IMO. 100% accurate area intel with no skills, no modules, no explaination. It has no room in the RP, and it is a double edged sword in PvP, which I personally would prefer was gone. The game would be much more tactical, much more interesting if local was gone, and players had to rely on their wits and their skills, their modules and their friends to survive in low-sec and 0.0.
Intel is something you aquire, not something that should be freely aquired by looking at a chat channel.
*edit* If the backstory is that the gates log the entry and exit, then unless you have concord level security access, you shouldnt be able to read that info. Why is it provided to every ship in the sector - even if the owner of the space doesn't have a reason to give it to you. It should make people hack the gate computer to get the info, and should allow people to hack the computer to remain hidden.
That would add another whole layer to the game as well as making skills less used in the games current state much more valuable. Hacking for intel sounds like it could be a nice new profession, not to mention all the PVP that would spring up from people trying to kill/protect said hacker.
Im not convinced that it would work out well in application but Im definitely intrigued at the possibilities.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:08:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Elmicker , and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
Nothing to do what this post is about.
Go read the OP.
Sure it is directly what this whole thing is about. Its called banding together for protection, flying with friends, etc so that the cloaked ship in local isn't scary and doesn't interfere with your carebear activities.
I mean WE have to fly together in "secure" space to protect our mining barges from suiciders, why should the rules change just because you are in 0.0? And we won't even talk about LowSec and protecting mining ops.
The cloaked ship won't effect you if you fly like everyone else does. The WHINE that you can't rat/mine/logistics/whatever because someone is cloaked in Local is so much BS.
The complaint that you have problems clearing your gate when you hold Soverienity has some merit, which is why I said I agreed with the POS module that requires higher Soverienity to use.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:12:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 19:13:00
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Sure it is directly what this whole thing is about. Its called banding together for protection, flying with friends, etc so that the cloaked ship in local isn't scary and doesn't interfere with your carebear activities.
You really have no idea how 0.0 works, do you?
Hostile in system == no carebearing. There is no room for error on that. It is absolute.
The only effective way to actively defend any kind of carebearing is to prevent anyone from coming into the system. The AFK cloaker is already in-system, so your system is compromised, and your enemies instantly have accurate intel on your camp's makeup, the exact location of the carebearing in question. The AFK cloaker is not alone. Assuming so is idiocy of the highest nature.
So. What can you do to get rid of him?
Nothing.
What can you do to prevent them coming back?
Nothing.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:15:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Elmicker
You really have no idea how 0.0 works, do you?
Hostile in system == no carebearing. There is no room for error on that. It is absolute.
The only effective way to actively defend any kind of carebearing is to prevent anyone from coming into the system. The AFK cloaker is already in-system, so your system is compromised, and your enemies instantly have accurate intel on your camp's makeup, the exact location of the carebearing in question. The AFK cloaker is not alone. Assuming so is idiocy of the highest nature.
So. What can you do to get rid of him?
Nothing.
What can you do to prevent them coming back?
Nothing.
JUST LIKE IN EMPIRE OR 0.0!!
Imagine that. Same-same.
Now if you hold Soverienity in the system, then a POS module would be acceptable to give you a chance at finding them, would it not? If you don't hold Sov, then you are in the same boat as the rest of EvE.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:18:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
I mean WE have to fly together in "secure" space to protect our mining barges from suiciders, why should the rules change just because you are in 0.0? And we won't even talk about LowSec and protecting mining ops.
The cloaked ship won't effect you if you fly like everyone else does. The WHINE that you can't rat/mine/logistics/whatever because someone is cloaked in Local is so much BS.
From my own personal experience, your estimation of the dangers in empire space, seems exaggerated. Then again I may just have been lucky time and again.
People can rat/mine/logistics/whatever if someone is cloaked, but at the expense of their efficiency or with increased risk to their ship. This would be totally fine with me, if this was caused by players actively pursuing this result, and not getting wasted at the bar.
Also, where does all this "WE" "YOU" stuff come from? I fly in both empire and 0.0. You make it sound like we are sworn enemies or inherently different from each other.
I'm also not tracking on how anyone is asking for the "rules" to be changed for any one group of people.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:18:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Now if you hold Soverienity in the system, then a POS module would be acceptable to give you a chance at finding them, would it not? If you don't hold Sov, then you are in the same boat as the rest of EvE.
Sov. Doesn't determine who holds the space, merely who has more POSes up. Cloaking farmers would be just about untouchable in NPC space, and space renters would be thoroughly shafted.
Quote: JUST LIKE IN EMPIRE OR 0.0!!
Don't compare empire and 0.0. Ever. Consider them seperate games if you must, but they should rarely, if ever, be mentioned in the same post as a comparison.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:22:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Elmicker , and then coming upon a blob of people who've banded together for safety in the harsh world interesting, then yeah. Sure.
Funny.. this is exactly what most ppl tell the anti-cloak whiners to do.
Nothing to do what this post is about.
Go read the OP.
Sure it is directly what this whole thing is about. Its called banding together for protection, flying with friends, etc so that the cloaked ship in local isn't scary and doesn't interfere with your carebear activities.
I mean WE have to fly together in "secure" space to protect our mining barges from suiciders, why should the rules change just because you are in 0.0? And we won't even talk about LowSec and protecting mining ops.
The cloaked ship won't effect you if you fly like everyone else does. The WHINE that you can't rat/mine/logistics/whatever because someone is cloaked in Local is so much BS.
The complaint that you have problems clearing your gate when you hold Soverienity has some merit, which is why I said I agreed with the POS module that requires higher Soverienity to use.
No, it isn't. Since you didn't read the OP and insist on hiding within your own reality, I'll spell it out for you:
The OP is about how cloaks have no counters once they are activated. How an individual can expend zero effort to avoid contact while legions of others can expend limitless effort, and still avoid the situation. This is very un-eve-like in it's concept and implementation. This needs visitation and correction because it is in imbalance.
However unpopular the most recent changes have been, at least THIS particular change will make me and scores of others pretty happy. Also, here's something for your reading pleasure.
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly... And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
To the Devs, What is the update on this? Why wasn't it part of the last patch?
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:29:00 -
[259]
Please don't say legions to try to exaggerate your point when an entire node can crash with not even a third of a legion of players, thanks.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:31:00 -
[260]
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Please don't say legions to try to exaggerate your point when an entire node can crash with not even a third of a legion of players, thanks.
Can, but not necessarily will. You could have a million players in a system and still not decloak an AFK cloaker.
|
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:39:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
However unpopular the most recent changes have been, at least THIS particular change will make me and scores of whiners pretty happy.
Fixed for accuracy ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:44:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
No, it isn't. Since you didn't read the OP and insist on hiding within your own reality, I'll spell it out for you:
The OP is about how cloaks have no counters once they are activated. How an individual can expend zero effort to avoid contact while legions of others can expend limitless effort, and still avoid the situation. This is very un-eve-like in it's concept and implementation. This needs visitation and correction because it is in imbalance.
i really think that it's the way you're thinking about it. in your system probing would be great cause you could find the bad guys, but on the other hand, it could be a lone ratters only defense especially in a system with no station and an npc settup. if you could probe a cloaker, the cloaker needs it's lock time and speed back, because you could win the fight just becuase he has the cloak fitted at that point. no matter if he was cloaked or not.
Quote: However unpopular the most recent changes have been, at least THIS particular change will make me and scores of others pretty happy. Also, here's something for your reading pleasure.
and also make scores of others unhappy because you are breaking a module. you know, i could probably go for a probe if you had to have sov to use it. but to be able to probe a cloak anywhere is rediculous and breaks the module.
|
Jensen Blayloc
Minmatar Galtech Security Services
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:54:00 -
[263]
If a cloaker is AFK, as is the big whine here, what difference does it make if he is alone? If he is afk, how exactly is he going to know what you are doing? Cloaking ships, coming in to recon you while you do your carebear thing I can see as a problem, if there is someone there, and if they have friends to tell that they found you. If not, who cares? You are too afraid to do anything if a hostile is in the zone? Even if, as you maintain is the problem, the person is AFK?
Yeah, Right. You people want to nerf cloaking, and it seems like you have made some headway, by claiming that only AFK cloakers (yeah that's the ticket, AFK cloakers) who are obviously EXPLOITING must be removed from the game. It isn't possible that getting probes to detect cloakers could be bad. There is no way that could in any way damage the already banged up art of recon.. It will only hurt the AFK Cloakers.. That's the problem... We really don't want to hurt the regular cloakers.. Really. |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:56:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 19:57:13
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc If he is afk, how exactly is he going to know what you are doing?
You don't know he's AFK. A cloak provides 100%, absolute protection from everything. It allows you, simply through your presence, to present an unquantifiable (and thus through the required assumption, high) threat with no actual effort on your part.
And yes, i know how much this change would hurt recons and cov. ops, i almost exclusively fly Arazus.
|
Jensen Blayloc
Minmatar Galtech Security Services
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:00:00 -
[265]
OMG!!! You mean there might be some RISK in your 0.0 Exploits?? The unknown? Wow. How can I possibly live with such danger.. |
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:18:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov .
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly... And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
To the Devs, What is the update on this? Why wasn't it part of the last patch?
They state that the nerf will only be to the low lvl cloaks.. it wont effect the covops cloak
So.. what happens when the non cov-ops cloaks get nerfed or probable but you still end up with cloaked ships wandering around your system for hours on end?
Are the whines about covops cloaks gonna ramp up? ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:23:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Please don't say legions to try to exaggerate your point when an entire node can crash with not even a third of a legion of players, thanks.
Can, but not necessarily will. You could have a million players in a system and still not decloak an AFK cloaker.
Then they must not be trying to decloak him.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:29:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri So.. what happens when the non cov-ops cloaks get nerfed or probable but you still end up with cloaked ships wandering around your system for hours on end?
More power to them. I don't give a flying monkeys what they're doing, as long as they're at their keyboard. It's the fact they have the same effects and protections AFK as they do when at their keyboard is what annoys me.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:33:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Illyria Ambri So.. what happens when the non cov-ops cloaks get nerfed or probable but you still end up with cloaked ships wandering around your system for hours on end?
More power to them. I don't give a flying monkeys what they're doing, as long as they're at their keyboard. It's the fact they have the same effects and protections AFK as they do when at their keyboard is what annoys me.
Tis a pity we all know that the whinage will start thick and hearty the moment they notice a cloaker.. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:41:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 20:44:23
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 19:50:46
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
No, it isn't. Since you didn't read the OP and insist on hiding within your own reality, I'll spell it out for you:
The OP is about how cloaks have no counters once they are activated. How an individual can expend zero effort to avoid contact while legions of others can expend limitless effort, and still avoid the situation. This is very un-eve-like in it's concept and implementation. This needs visitation and correction because it is in imbalance.
i really think that it's the way you're thinking about it. in your system probing would be great cause you could find the bad guys, but on the other hand, it could be a lone ratters only defense especially in a system with no station and an npc settup. if you could probe a cloaker, the cloaker needs it's lock time and speed back, because you could win the fight just becuase he has the cloak fitted at that point. no matter if he was cloaked or not.
Quote: However unpopular the most recent changes have been, at least THIS particular change will make me and scores of others pretty happy. Also, here's something for your reading pleasure.
and also make scores of others unhappy because you are breaking a module. you know, i could probably go for a probe if you had to have sov to use it. but to be able to probe a cloak anywhere is rediculous and breaks the module.
the whole purpose of the mod is to not be found, it has built in balances. plus you can't move or target while cloaked. it works fine.
you know, it is possible for you to go to another system rather then staying in the system the cloaker is in. i've done it before. works great if you're being paranoid.
if you just want to kill the cloaker, you also have the option to lure him, wait till he leaves system or several other ways to get him to show his face.
if neither of those things work, you are perfectly fine to go about your day.
I appreciate what you're saying, but unless the being scanned is less than 5 AU from the person hunting them, they won't have a warp to zero hit. This means on the next scanner drop, within 5 AU of the target, the person being hunted will see them in the directional scanner - this is when you decloak and warp to your next safe spot.
There's nothing that a scan probing ship can do to find you, unless you don't do anything to keep from being hidden.
That's the point of this post, which is how I stated it above in my previous reply.
Do you see why I have problems understanding where you are coming from now? I can't run a scenario in my head that allow someone to be found, outside of doing nothing to avoid it... That's the point of balance that should be reached.
For those talking about covops/recons it's even easier for those people. Those ships actually move rather quickly while cloaked, meaning at any given time if they was a warp to zero hit, it's 25k away from where the hit was, and if the recon pilot is changing directions, in the wrong direction also.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:48:00 -
[271]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 20:53:32 @elmiker is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:55:00 -
[272]
Originally by: sharkyballs is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
No, my entire assumption is based that the cloaked person should have to exercise some modicum of avoidance, even as easy as this is to do, to avoid contact if they don't want to be found - that's a balanced and fair mechanic to being probed out.
Now, if someone is afk, that's too damned bad. I'm sorry, but it's not fair to keep this mechanic unbalanced for someone who isn't even playing - that's just not cool at all. They are however NOT my target in this, they are realistically however a minority that in game play mechanics shouldn't be considered at all - they aren't playing.
|
Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:00:00 -
[273]
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 20:53:32 @elmiker is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
i am listing to you and the more i do, the more i want to play Russian rollit with my self.
let me make it simple.
Guns counter measure is Tank
see what i mean Guns <=> tank
Cloaks = ......?
u see?
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:02:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
I honestly don't see a need to keep covops/recons out of the equation for being scan probed, but hey, maybe it should be run on SiSi again to see how hard it is to avoid - maybe they should be excluded - I don't know. This is the grey area that would need testing.
You see.. its not a grey area.. the links you seem to enjoy posting flat out state that CovOps wont be touched... but you don't appear to want to stop at that which is what all cloakers are trying to prevent..
See all this time you been whining about cloaks.. but now you have stated that "hell lets screw with the covops cloaks also" This shows that you dont simply want to be able to scan down and kill any cloaker.. you want to completly negate the entire cloaking system by whatever means necessary. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:05:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Zombie Network Not broken. No fix coming or required.
This i believe is the correct answer. Please note it. If you think otherwise, well Your opinion on the matter is wrong and sucks big time.
_________________________________
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:13:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Sir Scorpion
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 20:53:32 @elmiker is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk? i would hope that no nerfs would ever happen from assumptions. did the cloaker tell you he was afk, how do you know that? you don't know it. which makes me believe your just paranoid.
if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system. all you're doing by nerfing the lower cloaks is hurting people that use them for what they're intended. that's about as rediculous as: can we nerf guns next because the carebear "thinks" you might shoot at him?
i'm listening to you and the more i do, the more it sounds like you just want an easy kill or you're too paranoid to do anything with a hostile in system.
i am listing to you and the more i do, the more i want to play Russian rollit with my self.
let me make it simple.
Guns counter measure is Tank
see what i mean Guns <=> tank
Cloaks = ......?
u see?
let me make it more simple and also repeat myself.
cloak's counter is that you can't be locked quickly, cloaker can't move quickly, can't fire, can't warp <= can't kill you. afk or not.
way more negatives <=> rediculous
u see?
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:13:00 -
[277]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:14:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:13:36
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
I honestly don't see a need to keep covops/recons out of the equation for being scan probed, but hey, maybe it should be run on SiSi again to see how hard it is to avoid - maybe they should be excluded - I don't know. This is the grey area that would need testing.
You see.. its not a grey area.. the links you seem to enjoy posting flat out state that CovOps wont be touched... but you don't appear to want to stop at that which is what all cloakers are trying to prevent..
See all this time you been whining about cloaks.. but now you have stated that "hell lets screw with the covops cloaks also" This shows that you dont simply want to be able to scan down and kill any cloaker.. you want to completly negate the entire cloaking system by whatever means necessary.
I'm a covops flyer myself, so if you're saying that I'm looking to screw myself you'd be wrong, but I do believe in fair play AND I concede that covops/recons could use testing before inclusion.
So if you're basing it purely on, "Hey I believe I should be able to do x no matter how much that contradicts fair game play mechanics", then I'd just assume to exclude you from discussion regardless - because you're biased.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:20:00 -
[278]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 21:21:37
Originally by: sharkyballs is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk?
Someone who is in a system 23/7 is bound to be AFK for most of the time. Also, a few of the cloakers i've had encounters with i've known personally and have confirmed they're AFK. I'm also a user of the tactic myself.
Quote: if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system/
Yes, but at least I have a chance of finding them. And as long as they're at their keyboard, i don't give a flying monkey's. At least there's a human there putting the effort in to disrupt our regular operations.
Originally by: sharkyballs let me make it more simple and also repeat myself.
cloak's counter is that you can't be locked quickly, cloaker can't move quickly, can't fire, can't warp <= can't kill you. afk or not.
way more negatives <=> rediculous
u see?
Have you ever flown any ships fitted with cloaks? You seem to have no idea how they actually work.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:23:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs is your entire argument made from assumptions that someone is afk?
Someone who is in a system 23/7 is bound to be AFK for most of the time. Also, a few of the cloakers i've had encounters with i've known personally and have confirmed they're AFK. I'm also a user of the tactic myself.
Quote: if it happens, you're still going to have cloakers you can't find in your system/
Yes, but at least I have a chance of finding them. And as long as they're at their keyboard, i don't give a flying monkey's. At least there's a human there putting the effort in to disrupt our regular operations.
so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:26:00 -
[280]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 29/08/2007 21:29:35
Originally by: Sir Scorpion
Originally by: Cadela Fria
A player who's docked and completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
There's not counter for that either Point being. Don't fix what isn't broken
Are your seriously with MC ?!?!, I mean really dude wtf !! u know that:
1: thy cant dock at 0.0 stations and If so it’s the corp/alliance problem.
2:if your hunting for them and u know thy are in station I guess U CAMP THE STATION!!! And I have seen MC do that with bubbles and interdictors and all of them know that, how did u get into MC??!
3: if he is in ur station, dock and wait for him to leave the station via the gest view….ur seriously in MC right?
Dude I don’t know what to say after seeing a respectable hardcore pvp alliance posting such weak discussions!!
But if you’re an empire builder industrial than I rest my case
I don't see why me being in MC should mean I should see things from your point of view
1. Be as that may, but being cloaked in any ship other then a recon ship or covops, or stealth bomber, you have extremely severe penalties put onto you that means you're basically stuck without being able to do anything whatsoever.
It's the reconship you gotta watch out for...any other ship is basically rendered in a state like being docked, except you can move at an astonishing..10 m/s?
2. So bubble up the gates, same result if the cloaker tries anything :) Again, the MC remark holds no relevance to what I believe versus what you believe, so no point in mentioning it
3. Just like someone isn't going to uncloak, I doubt the guy is gonna undock if he knows he's in a tight spot, or needs to stay out of trouble, waiting for the right moment to strike
As for your standard provocation about me in MC and the quality of my argument, I don't see any point to pursue a smackfest with you. I don't seem to see your name anywhere in the MC roster list, so how you became an expert on my opinions or MC for that matter is unclear to me tbh. Nor do I see the need for you to bash me for what I believe. If you want to discuss this, do it civil, because that kind of response won't make any impact, other then make yourself look silly
Thank you.
Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right
|
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:31:00 -
[281]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:34:50 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:31:27
Originally by: sharkyballs
so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
What is this supposed to mean? Everyone has already stated that an AFK cloaker doesn't project a use, is that not correct?
Rhetorical question - of course there are uses, none of those however involve active game play mechanics.
Here's a real question for you though. If you were at a casino, playing blackjack (I know, way more structured set of rules than what's involved here)
Do you stop game play because a person sits out?
Do you deal cards to the person who sits out and allow him to come back in if he decides to play his hand?
or
Do you do neither, because he isn't playing, and therefore isn't considered in the game play mechanics to those who are?
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:40:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:34:50 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:31:27
Originally by: sharkyballs
so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
What is this supposed to mean? Everyone has already stated that an AFK cloaker doesn't project a use, is that not correct?
Rhetorical question - of course there are uses, none of those however involve active game play mechanics.
Here's a real question for you though. If you were at a casino, playing blackjack (I know, way more structured set of rules than what's involved here)
Do you stop game play because a person sits out?
Do you deal cards to the person who sits out and allow him to come back in if he decides to play his hand?
or
Do you do neither, because he isn't playing, and therefore isn't considered in the game play mechanics to those who are?
Of course you aren't going after AFK cloakers, you are going after ALL cloakers. If you want to get rid of AFK cloakers, why don't you propose things that don't effect cloaks but nerf AFK?
Otherwise quit pretending and changing your story.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:43:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:44:00
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:34:50 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 21:31:27
Originally by: sharkyballs
so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
What is this supposed to mean? Everyone has already stated that an AFK cloaker doesn't project a use, is that not correct?
Rhetorical question - of course there are uses, none of those however involve active game play mechanics.
Here's a real question for you though. If you were at a casino, playing blackjack (I know, way more structured set of rules than what's involved here)
Do you stop game play because a person sits out?
Do you deal cards to the person who sits out and allow him to come back in if he decides to play his hand?
or
Do you do neither, because he isn't playing, and therefore isn't considered in the game play mechanics to those who are?
Of course you aren't going after AFK cloakers, you are going after ALL cloakers. If you want to get rid of AFK cloakers, why don't you propose things that don't effect cloaks but nerf AFK?
Otherwise quit pretending and changing your story.
Because they're not playing?
You can't include someone who's not playing in a discussion regarding active game play mechanics - that just doesn't compute.
[edit: and the story hasn't changed - read the OP]
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:45:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 21:47:05
Originally by: sharkyballs so in order to satisfy you that there is someone at the keyboard, you're willing to kill all the other great uses of a cloak? that doesn't make sense to me.
Because you're not seeing that the changes would only affect those who have the attention span of a slug on acid. "Oh noez, i might have to scan to see if they're trying to find me!" Totally ruins every good use of a cloak.
Quote: i said because you couldn't argue it
No, i argued against your points, and then proceeded to enquire as to whether you're arguing from the purely theoretical standpoint, or from actual ingame experience, as your arguments are consistently off the mark on their factual content. For example, you claimed that fitting a cloak would ruin any pvp setups, when just about every single one of the most effective pvp setups and tactics going at the moment will feature some sort of cloaking device. Hell, even the most effective pve setups fit them.
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby why don't you propose things that don't effect cloaks but nerf AFK?
Because i can't come up with a viable solution in my mind that alters the game's AFK mechanics that doesn't absolutely destroy entire swathes of the game. So far we've established that the probe changed might affect low-sec exploration, because people arent prepared to use cov. ops cloaks for it. That's about it. Aside from that, the effects are all good.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:53:00 -
[285]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 29/08/2007 21:54:29
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Because they're not playing?
You can't include someone who's not playing in a discussion regarding active game play mechanics - that just doesn't compute.
[edit: and the story hasn't changed - read the OP]
Again, why ALL cloakers, not just AFK cloakers? I fully agree with nerfing AFK but you want more. You want ALL cloaks. Said multiple times.
Read your own posts on page 1 & 2, you specifically want to be able to probe down non-CovertOps cloaks REGARDLESS of whether they are AFK or not. Maybe in the middle you got irritated, maybe it was late, maybe everyone arguing against you confused you. So answer me this simple question:
Do you want to: 1) Nerf all non-Covert Ops cloaks, active or not? Nerfing non-Covert Ops was mentioned multiple times 2) Nerf ALL cloaks. This was alluded too by the "evaluation" of its effect on Covert Ops cloaks on Test. 3) Nerf AFK cloakers. The original OP. 4) Wish we would go away I know I would
If you want to nerf AFK cloakers, I am 100% for you as long as you don't nerf them for those of us that AREN'T AFK.
//edited to fix quotes- I hate these boards
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:56:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Elmicker
Because i can't come up with a viable solution in my mind that alters the game's AFK mechanics that doesn't absolutely destroy entire swathes of the game.
Then lets argue this one, I'm completely in favor of keeping AFK players from causing mayhem.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Kyusoath Orillian
Northern Intelligence Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:00:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Zombie Network Not broken. No fix coming or required.
QFT
if you could somehow cloak thru someone shooting at you i would think of it as a defensive ability that needs a counter.
using cloaking in the way the op said is the same as sitting docked, you want a fix for that, cos you can't attack someone whos docked.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:04:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Kyusoath Orillian using cloaking in the way the op said is the same as sitting docked
Impeccable logic.
Obviously, someone cloaked, in space, who could be anywhere within the system is in the same class as someone in a station, who can be easily tracked and can only come into space from one place.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:09:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 29/08/2007 21:54:29
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Because they're not playing?
You can't include someone who's not playing in a discussion regarding active game play mechanics - that just doesn't compute.
[edit: and the story hasn't changed - read the OP]
Again, why ALL cloakers, not just AFK cloakers? I fully agree with nerfing AFK but you want more. You want ALL cloaks. Said multiple times.
Read your own posts on page 1 & 2, you specifically want to be able to probe down non-CovertOps cloaks REGARDLESS of whether they are AFK or not. Maybe in the middle you got irritated, maybe it was late, maybe everyone arguing against you confused you. So answer me this simple question:
Do you want to: 1) Nerf all non-Covert Ops cloaks, active or not? Nerfing non-Covert Ops was mentioned multiple times 2) Nerf ALL cloaks. This was alluded too by the "evaluation" of its effect on Covert Ops cloaks on Test. 3) Nerf AFK cloakers. The original OP. 4) Wish we would go away I know I would
If you want to nerf AFK cloakers, I am 100% for you as long as you don't nerf them for those of us that AREN'T AFK.
//edited to fix quotes- I hate these boards
Do you want to: 1) I don't think it's a nerf to ask someone who's at the keyboard to actually play with me, but if you consider that as one, then definitely non-covert ops.
2) I think I got caught thinking out loud and being tired. It "seems" possible to me that it wouldn't make a difference if covops/recons were included. SBs fly faster cloaked than uncloaked, covops fly just as fast, and so do recons. I don't think it's possible for anyone to catch one of these ships if the player is actively avoiding being caught - I think it's impossible to be caught. If that's the case, then wouldn't fair play dictate they be included?
BUT
Maybe they shouldn't... That's the grey part I'm talking about. Maybe people should be rewarded for the long training time, or consideration given for the cost of the ship, etc. So if you were to say to me, non-covops/recons or it's a deal breaker, and I was in the choice making chair - I'd say roll with the changes without covops/recons.
That's real honest answer coming from me there. The fair game mechanics part in me says they should be considered for inclusion.
3) I don't think it's possible to nerf someone who isn't playing. They've already nerfed themselves. 4) Hell naw... I love my buzzard :) and I'm about a week away from completing all my supporting recon training. So yeah, I'm going into this after spending the last 6-8 months training for it, but because I believe in fair play.
|
shaolinp
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:26:00 -
[290]
who's to say if they're afk
my son was waiting 6 hours for a afk hostile in system to go away. he got tired of waiting and tried warping to a gate. when he got back the guy was waiting for him right there and poof
lol
|
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Reblochons Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:37:00 -
[291]
Solving the problem of AFK cloakers without nerfing cloaks is easy, if the player doesn't do anything at all and has a cloaking device working, then he should just get disconnected with no emergency warp.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:43:00 -
[292]
Originally by: RigelKentaurus Solving the problem of AFK cloakers without nerfing cloaks is easy, if the player doesn't do anything at all and has a cloaking device working, then he should just get disconnected with no emergency warp.
This won't work...
Cloaking and sitting still watching a gate, or just watching local traffic, or scouting or whatever should remain. The only thing that should change is the ability to be able to go after them, and if they do NOTHING to avoid being hunted - then well - sorry.
|
La Nina
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:05:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 19:13:00 Hostile in system == no carebearing. There is no room for error on that. It is absolute.
Kinda funny... this is only an absolute because you and your friends will accept no risks at all when carebearing. Solution for this would be for you to grow a pair (a pair each preferably)
Personally I rat in a pvp setup, when a hostile recon is in system I gang up with others in system and make some sort of plan for what we do when said recon decides to uncloak and engage (if at all) and simply go on about my business. In addition to this there are scouts in nearby systems to see if anyone is moving a gang into position. If the threat is sufficient to warrant a cease of ratting activities I will of course do so but that also requires the enemy to put forth a substansial ammount of firepower so the cloaking part really never enters into this.
Also, what do you think the isk farmers will do instead of cloaking when you enter local? Wait for you to come kill them? They will log off, and you still won't catch them. They will then log onto a newb alt and come watch you in local (Seen this happen many times)
Cloaks already have substansial penalties on ships not designed to use them and need no further nerfs. Uncloak your battleship and you will have to wait 10-20 seconds before you can get a lock on anything with a t2 cloak depending on your skill level. To that Vinnythebull person, if having ceptors nearby makes these snipers hold their cloaks etc letting traffic pass why dont you... *drumroll*... keep some ceptors around to keep them subdued?? Too much effort compared to simply ganking them?
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Reblochons Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:16:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Cloaking and sitting still watching a gate, or just watching local traffic, or scouting or whatever should remain. The only thing that should change is the ability to be able to go after them, and if they do NOTHING to avoid being hunted - then well - sorry.
Unless you want cloaking devices to become completely useless CCP won't give you anything that can make you warp 100 meters away from a cloaker. So anyone not AFK will be able to avoid being found, even if CCP give you special probes, etc...
Then, all you can expect to kill are AFK cloakers. If you really want to kill them that much, then forget what I said in my previous post. Let's consider a special probe for cloaks with a 100km deviation. If servers recieves nothing from the cloaker's client, then this deviation would gradualy decrease proportionnal to the time elapsed since the last cloaker's action. After 1 hour, the deviation would be 1km. What do you think about this?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:22:00 -
[295]
Originally by: La Nina Kinda funny... this is only an absolute because you and your friends will accept no risks at all when carebearing. Solution for this would be for you to grow a pair (a pair each preferably)
Ooh, and alt telling me to grow a pair. The irony of it all. You can try regularly ratting and mining with hostiles in local. You'll be skint in a month, i guarantee it. And the reason there's no carebearing, is because if a hostile turns up, you're meant to go kill it. Not sit there making money.
Quote: They will log off
which is why i'd like to see NPCs carry a small aggro timer
Quote: Cloaks already have substansial penalties
lol.
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Reblochons Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:24:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Elmicker
Quote: They will log off
which is why i'd like to see NPCs carry a small aggro timer
Then they will keep warping for 5 minutes, and log off.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:25:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Elmicker on 29/08/2007 23:27:33
Originally by: RigelKentaurus Then they will keep warping for 5 minutes, and log off.
Well good for them, they have half a brain.
That said, max-skill prober + interdictor might put a stop to that.
I'm not asking for an instant 1-click gank machine, i'm asking for a chance to kill them. That's all.
|
xHoodx
The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 23:34:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Elmicker
Ooh, and alt telling me to grow a pair. The irony of it all. You can try regularly ratting and mining with hostiles in local. You'll be skint in a month, i guarantee it. And the reason there's no carebearing, is because if a hostile turns up, you're meant to go kill it. Not sit there making money.
Grow a pair.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 00:19:00 -
[299]
Originally by: xHoodx
Originally by: Elmicker
Ooh, and alt telling me to grow a pair. The irony of it all. You can try regularly ratting and mining with hostiles in local. You'll be skint in a month, i guarantee it. And the reason there's no carebearing, is because if a hostile turns up, you're meant to go kill it. Not sit there making money.
Grow a pair.
/Running out of the good cheese. Oh well....given the quality of whine consider Cheez Whizz to be served
In other news...continued cloak usage causes lax bowels. This may be related to the fear of cloaks becoming a phobia causing many an alliance to advise immediate implementation of "Operation Dock and Logon Jita Alt For Extended Shopping Holiday".
Further semi-garbled transmission from 0.0:
"Holy Shnikes..a neutral came in our 200-man system AND I CAN'T SEE HIM. OMG...the horror. Quick...to the carrier POS...agggggg---!"
"Dude...add shuttles to overview"
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 02:01:00 -
[300]
simple solutions:
1. cloaks need fuel! 1h cloaking = 1 full covops cargohold of fuel.
2. 15 min cycle on cloak after that you have to reactivate your cloak after a delay of 10mins (can be reduced to 5 min with a skill)
anyway cloaking in its current form is broke and needs changed. no 100% safety in eve please!
|
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 02:05:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Kyusoath Orillian
using cloaking in the way the op said is the same as sitting docked, you want a fix for that, cos you can't attack someone whos docked.
at least we can shoot the station!
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 03:21:00 -
[302]
You could be at keyboard and invulnerably cloaked... watching local or something.
Imbalanced? Yes. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 03:30:00 -
[303]
People really don't think hard enough these days.
The gripe about whether the offending pilots may be afk or not is entirely irrelevant, since 'defenders' must assume the 'invaders' are atk and present an immediate threat. Indeed, whether the pilot is afk or not, his payed-for account is active and logged in, and that is all that matters.
So, the only argument for boosting probes/ nerfing cloaks with any virtue, is that some sovereign 0.0 residents don't feel they have adequate tools to defend strategic locations (carebearing gangs, gates to sovereign system etc.) from cloaked non-cov-ops ships.
When considering possible solutions to this issue, it is important to prioritise those that would cause the least possible disruption to wider game balance. So you don't start by looking for a solution that will enable cloaked ships to be found, wherever they may be. Instead, you should try to find a solution which prevents cloaked ships from unleashing surprise attacks on well organised gangs, carebear or otherwise.
This line of thought should logically bring you to the conclusion that, if you need anything at all, you actually need a deployable device that decloaks non-cov-ops ships within a fixed radius.
I wouldn't support that either, but it is a more logical counter to the threat which being presented as the main bugbear of cloaks.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 03:38:00 -
[304]
The fuel for non-covops cloaks or even making cloaked ships probe-able both work. Good point about defending space though, Tom. Exactly what I was trying to convey. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
podadot
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 06:08:00 -
[305]
Personally, I love the idea that was suggested of tying cloaking device cap usage to mass or sig radius of the ship with possible exceptions for covops and recons. Makes sense, is fair, etc.
|
Edey
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 07:38:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:16:35 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/08/2007 03:08:56 When are we going to get a fix for cloaking? In it's current implementation it's very un-eve-like.
There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay? No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
[Edit: I'm not going to waste your time with some huge diatribe, my question is straight to the point. I'm willing to keep this on page 1 until I hear an answer, one way or another, as to why there's no counter to an uncounterable defensive system. What difference is there in this vs. an unstoppable ship? Both are unbalanced...]
For those who believe the devs aren't going to change things even slightly...
And a link for the words directly from the Devs themselves
There is nothing broken. Fix is not needed. Everything is fine. If you can't catch a cloaking carebear this is YOUR problem.
|
Zibun Ionic
Minmatar Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 11:11:00 -
[307]
Edited by: Zibun Ionic on 30/08/2007 11:14:48
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds ...Instead, you should try to find a solution which prevents cloaked ships from unleashing surprise attacks on well organised gangs, carebear or otherwise.
This line of thought should logically bring you to the conclusion that, if you need anything at all, you actually need a deployable device that decloaks non-cov-ops ships within a fixed radius.
I thought almost exactly same thing(except it would decloak covops aswell). Some kind of high slot item perhaps, that will - let's say - decloak all ships within 20km radius (rad might be more, but less might not be useful). Keeping the item high slot might prevent solo-gankers just fit em and go uncloaking carebears cloaking on the gates.
-Z
Cloaca Maxima - The Sewage of Amarr Empire. |
Constable Detritus
PURE Legion Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:08:00 -
[308]
Originally by: d026 simple solutions:
1. cloaks need fuel! 1h cloaking = 1 full covops cargohold of fuel.
Hilarious, at the most... Try collecting intel within one hour. Also, where to store all those probes? I need to get there in the first place, too. Going there = 30 mins, maybe avoiding hostile gang, oops, 10mins of fuel gone already...
Originally by: d026
2. 15 min cycle on cloak after that you have to reactivate your cloak after a delay of 10mins (can be reduced to 5 min with a skill)
This is so dumb, I can't even think of a counter point */emote listens to the inner void*
Originally by: d026
anyway cloaking in its current form is broke and needs changed. no 100% safety in eve please!
Well, a Covops ship won't do jack to you. If you want safety in your ratting / home systems from a Covops, keep their mates from reaching your systems!
Also, there is no 100% safety in a Covops/Recon. If you now what you are doing and if you know your systems well, it actually is quite easy to catch a cloaker. No, I won't tell to the forums what I fear most
If however you are talking about cloaks on non-designated ships, you have my fair support. Cloaks should be a means of psychological warfare and not a "get out of jail" card for makros, power farmers or pvp gangs who suddenly find themselves outnumbered. ______________________________________ Goberth Ludwig: Joshua has a pillow with molle printed on it.
|
Aem
White-Noise Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:19:00 -
[309]
Wouldn't mind seeing a nerf for Ravens, fitting a cloak uses 350cpu or the such.
Would be nice to catch an isk farmer once in a while.
|
Scouteye
Ghost Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:19:00 -
[310]
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 29/08/2007 14:19:10
Originally by: Scouteye hes an argument for you!
whats the counter to probes............
a CLOAK!
there you go, BALANCE!
jeee wizzz, its not that hard to figure out really!
and a NERF to fitting requirments or effects on your ship IS a counter, hence the changes to NOS, or stopping tanking with cyno ships
train a cloak and fly one for a while, you'll soon see it dont need nerfed.
PROBING CLOAKS IS NOT A COUNTER TO CLOAKS, IT IS AN I WIN BUTTON AGAINST THEM.
please re read my comment, im on your side
there are calls for balance and counters, where is the modualr counter to probes...??? its a cloak, hence why cloaks wont be nerfed as they are the counter to probes... you getting me...
again, im on your side shark
|
|
Scouteye
Ghost Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:22:00 -
[311]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull Explain how this is balanced. 8 guys in cloaked ships camp the gate to the 0.0 space that your alliance owns and sits there all day. When they feel like it, they uncloak and blast any ships coming through the gate into your system. Now that they are active and shooting your people you decide to fight back and remove them from their 23/7 gate camp. Oh no, they just cloaked again, I guess they can just go afk until your force leaves then continue to blast people entering the system when you leave. Rinse and repeat. The cloaked ships fight completely on their terms, If they don't feel like fighting they leave their computer, go watch t.v. or play on their other accounts then come back when your gone. The noncloaked ships looking to remove the pests from their systems have no way of engaging the claoked ships, all they can do is camp their gate 23/7, which requires them to be active that entire time at their computers. The cloaked ships however can be afk anytime they feel like it safe and sound until the attackers leave.
Why would it be bad to have probes that can slowly detect where a cloaked ship would be? They would practically be ineffective against a cloaked ship is piloted by someone paiyng half attention and moving their ship around. It would only really be effective against someone afk not moving for hours.
so you never thought of sticking a large bubble on the other side of all the exit gates with a camp on each one with intys ready to decloak hostiles and then leaving the system the hostiles are in and waiting them out and killing them when they leave?
you never thought of that??
tactics tactics and patience is ALL that is required to get a covert
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:25:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Scouteye
Originally by: VinnyTheBull Explain how this is balanced. 8 guys in cloaked ships camp the gate to the 0.0 space that your alliance owns and sits there all day. When they feel like it, they uncloak and blast any ships coming through the gate into your system. Now that they are active and shooting your people you decide to fight back and remove them from their 23/7 gate camp. Oh no, they just cloaked again, I guess they can just go afk until your force leaves then continue to blast people entering the system when you leave. Rinse and repeat. The cloaked ships fight completely on their terms, If they don't feel like fighting they leave their computer, go watch t.v. or play on their other accounts then come back when your gone. The noncloaked ships looking to remove the pests from their systems have no way of engaging the claoked ships, all they can do is camp their gate 23/7, which requires them to be active that entire time at their computers. The cloaked ships however can be afk anytime they feel like it safe and sound until the attackers leave.
Why would it be bad to have probes that can slowly detect where a cloaked ship would be? They would practically be ineffective against a cloaked ship is piloted by someone paiyng half attention and moving their ship around. It would only really be effective against someone afk not moving for hours.
so you never thought of sticking a large bubble on the other side of all the exit gates with a camp on each one with intys ready to decloak hostiles and then leaving the system the hostiles are in and waiting them out and killing them when they leave?
you never thought of that??
tactics tactics and patience is ALL that is required to get a covert
It's easier to fight on the forums demanding nerfs as opposed to ingame .
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Scouteye
Ghost Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:30:00 -
[313]
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
IM A WHAT!
oh you got a billion and one thngs to learn about EVE mate, a lot. I fly a covert because i like to sneak up on people and blow them up and get a kill and do a job for my corp and for my alliance and make a dent in the oposisions walet
do YOU suggest that every one fly a fing T2 BS into every figth just so you can see them, you simply cant be bothered to adapt, you want EVERYTHING laid on a plate for you so its easy, and THAT is being a coward, not prepeair to put the EFFORT into finding someone
OMG im sooo MAD, a coward! you have NO idea
|
heheheh
Singularity. Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:35:00 -
[314]
Nothing wrong, needs no fix.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 12:46:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds People really don't think hard enough these days.
The gripe about whether the offending pilots may be afk or not is entirely irrelevant, since 'defenders' must assume the 'invaders' are atk and present an immediate threat. Indeed, whether the pilot is afk or not, his payed-for account is active and logged in, and that is all that matters.
So, the only argument for boosting probes/ nerfing cloaks with any virtue, is that some sovereign 0.0 residents don't feel they have adequate tools to defend strategic locations (carebearing gangs, gates to sovereign system etc.) from cloaked non-cov-ops ships.
When considering possible solutions to this issue, it is important to prioritise those that would cause the least possible disruption to wider game balance. So you don't start by looking for a solution that will enable cloaked ships to be found, wherever they may be. Instead, you should try to find a solution which prevents cloaked ships from unleashing surprise attacks on well organised gangs, carebear or otherwise.
This line of thought should logically bring you to the conclusion that, if you need anything at all, you actually need a deployable device that decloaks non-cov-ops ships within a fixed radius.
I wouldn't support that either, but it is a more logical counter to the threat which being presented as the main bugbear of cloaks.
yar - all these probe and scan *****s dont really care if cloaking as a profession was removed entirely - they cant think logically to only remove afk cloakers ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
Postlatta Mouseanon
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:14:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Scouteye
Originally by: VinnyTheBull
Seriously every person who is defending cloaks is a coward and only wants to engage on their own terms without any risk of dieing at all. That is not what EVE is. I am sorry to break it to you cloaking carebears. Anti-cloak probes would not be an instant win I found you your dead button. They would add balance to them. If you want to saddle up and play PVP then you have to actually take some risks. That is how it should be. You should not be able to go into enemy space and fight when you "feel like it". If your going to come into hostile space and the owners of that space are willing to gang up and defend it they have a right to be able to find you. You should not be able to just afk cloak until they leave then continue to harass the occupiers without any risk of being retaliated on.
IM A WHAT!
oh you got a billion and one thngs to learn about EVE mate, a lot. I fly a covert because i like to sneak up on people and blow them up and get a kill and do a job for my corp and for my alliance and make a dent in the oposisions walet
do YOU suggest that every one fly a fing T2 BS into every figth just so you can see them, you simply cant be bothered to adapt, you want EVERYTHING laid on a plate for you so its easy, and THAT is being a coward, not prepeair to put the EFFORT into finding someone
OMG im sooo MAD, a coward! you have NO idea
Coward in a mining barge even.
"I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up."-- Khan Noonien Singh
|
Jade190
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:20:00 -
[317]
Since this thread will never die. I'll just bump it to the top and say nerf everything on the following list: CLOAKS RAILGUNS BLASTERS ECM DAMPS SHIELD TANKS ARMOR TANKS ARTILLERY AUTOCANNONS PULSE LASERS BEAM LASERS MINING BARGES MINING LASERS STATIONS CONCORD LITTLE WHITE BUNNIES AND CHEESE
That is all....
|
Postlatta Mouseanon
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:23:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Jade190 Since this thread will never die. I'll just bump it to the top and say nerf everything on the following list: CLOAKS RAILGUNS BLASTERS ECM DAMPS SHIELD TANKS ARMOR TANKS ARTILLERY AUTOCANNONS PULSE LASERS BEAM LASERS MINING BARGES MINING LASERS STATIONS CONCORD LITTLE WHITE BUNNIES AND CHEESE
That is all....
But strip miners can now do 5672 damage? Cool!
|
Jade190
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:25:00 -
[319]
That's nothing compared to what Bunnies can do to your hull.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:42:00 -
[320]
ccp, please nerf anyone who starts a nerf something thread.
|
|
Exlegion
KnightRaven Research KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 14:49:00 -
[321]
Edited by: Exlegion on 30/08/2007 14:57:30 I don't know if it's already been said, since I haven't read all 11 pages yet, but here are my thoughts on the issue:
I travel through NPC 0.0 sec. Sometimes I go 5 jumps without an NPC station to dock in. While traveling very aware of my surroundings and checking who's in the system (i.e. NOT AFK'ING), I'm being actively hunted, sometimes by roaming gangs of 10 vs my one self. They'll drop bubbles near all gates once they know I'm in the system (which by the way, what's the counter to bubbles? ). The only thing that keeps me alive is my cloak, PERIOD. Yeah yeah, "bring your own blob... blah blah". My point is cloaks have other uses besides cloaking and AFK'ing. There are no counters to bubbles, and no counters to blobs.
IF cloaks are nerfed a 0.0 system will be 100% locked down by blobs. And the only way to travel through it will be by bringing your own blob, since otherwise it'll mean death to the traveller and as always, minimal risk to the blobbers. I suspect that this witch hunt against cloaks is really about making it easier for blobs to rake up more points on their killboards.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:32:00 -
[322]
I have a few questions to the people screaming for a cloak nerf.
1: What is the counter to probes?
2: What will the point be in fitting a cloak if you can scan it down like any other ship without a cloak.
3: And many people are crying about people comming into their system cloaking up and just beeing there. And while the dev`s said once that the covert op cloak will work as before, how will that change anything?
He will still be cloaked, you will still not be able to find him and you will still be crying about this lone "afk" cloaker in the system.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:35:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Bendit 1: What is the counter to probes?
Paying attention to your scanner and warping away
Quote: 2: What will the point be in fitting a cloak if you can scan it down like any other ship without a cloak.
To probe down a cloaker will require you to work your way down through the probes from the system-wide probes down to the 5 AU ones, instead of just jumping to the 5AU ones via scanner use. The cloak will make scanning you out incredibly difficult.
Quote: He will still be cloaked, you will still not be able to find him...
Which is why the change should be applied to all cloaks, with prototype cloaks the easiest to find, and covert cloaks verging on impossible.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:42:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Zibun Ionic It's not that imbalanced. Local watchers can sit on the station as well assuming there are stations about. If there ain't, there usually ain't a lot to watch either.-Z
Not only is your "no station, not important" opinion wrong, but there are also these things called "Outposts" which are player-controlled stations. They don't allow docking rights for just anyone...
To all the people saying: "Cloakers aren't hurting anyone, let them be!": Can I get a module that will make me invulnerable to probing while I'm running a mission? I'm not hurting anyone. Thanks in advance. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:46:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Bendit 1: What is the counter to probes?
Paying attention to your scanner and warping away
LOL
And the counter to cloaks if that is considered a "counter"?
Paying attention to local and leaving the system.
Its actually EASIER to counter the cloak, since the bubble might be on the OTHER side of the gate....
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:49:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Paying attention to local and leaving the system.
Why should someone leave the system they've invested tens of billions of ISK into, because someone is sitting in local with a 2mil ISK cloak?
|
Yagyu Retsudo
Yagyu Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:55:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Constable Detritus "get out of jail" card for Moms and Titans
Capitals should not be able to cloak at all - period. That's the only change really required. Also, for those whining about people sitting in their back systems cloaked, perhaps the sov 2(3?) system scanner should pick up everyone cloaked but not using a cov ops cloak. Think of it as an acceptable compromise that sees the system scanner have a practical use.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:55:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Paying attention to local and leaving the system.
Why should someone leave the system they've invested tens of billions of ISK into, because someone is sitting in local with a 2mil ISK cloak?
because then you could go about your day and not be paranoid about the hostile in system. it's just as stupid as your suggested "counter" and semi-proves nothing needs changing. because checking scanner is about like saying checking local, it's not a counter because your scanner doesn't pinpoint like a probe does. hence, it's flawed.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 16:59:00 -
[329]
Originally by: sharkyballs because then you could go about your day and not be paranoid about the hostile in system.
Or. I could kill them, then go about my day? Instead of cowering in fear 4 systems away hoping he leaves of his own accord.
Quote: because checking scanner is about like saying checking local, it's not a counter because your scanner doesn't pinpoint like a probe does. hence, it's flawed.
Who mentioned scanners? The fix specifically states that scanners will not pick up cloakers, but probes will (with an added amount of difficulty and innaccuracy). The lack of scanner means that you have to use every single probe, which means you need a near-max skilled probe pilot. This means teamwork, and effort.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:01:00 -
[330]
who mentioned it?
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Bendit 1: What is the counter to probes?
Paying attention to your scanner and warping away
uh, you did?
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:04:00 -
[331]
Originally by: sharkyballs uh, you did?
In a completely different context to the one you mentioned?
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:06:00 -
[332]
It sounds like the problem I and others have with AFK cloaking, is that the cloakers can hinder other players while not actively in the game.
One possible solution would be to put a countdown timer (say 15 or 30min) and the timer must be clicked on to be refreshed. If it counts down to 0, you uncloak. That way there is ZERO negative effect on cloaks, but would stop people from AFK cloaking. Is there any reason this wouldn't work that anyone can think of?
I don't feel this is a dire need that must be changed, but if this were implemented I'd feel better about the whole cloaking matter.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:37:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Gorefacer That way there is ZERO negative effect on cloaks, but would stop people from AFK cloaking?
What difference does it make to gameplay whether they are afk or atk?
Neither state negates the responsibility of others to arm themselves against potential threats.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:49:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Originally by: Gorefacer That way there is ZERO negative effect on cloaks, but would stop people from AFK cloaking?
What difference does it make to gameplay whether they are afk or atk?
Neither state negates the responsibility of others to arm themselves against potential threats.
The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:56:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Neither state negates the responsibility of others to arm themselves against potential threats.
Except if you're cloaked.
|
cuteboylookingatyou
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:02:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Neither state negates the responsibility of others to arm themselves against potential threats.
Except if you're cloaked.
Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat? Do you realize how dumb you sound?
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:08:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:08:46
Originally by: Gorefacer The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
Meh.. I think it's unnecessary and lame tbh. It makes no difference to gameplay whether the player is afk or not, the attitude of others to a cloaked pilot would be the same either way and they would still be calling for more nerfs.
This would just irritate anyone who wants to cloak up while they go for a dump.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:11:00 -
[338]
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat?
Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:17:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs uh, you did?
In a completely different context to the one you mentioned?
you said using the scanner was the counter to the cloak and my relpy to that was:
[Quote] because checking scanner is about like saying checking local, it's not a counter because your scanner doesn't pinpoint like a probe does. hence, it's flawed.
then you typed something off the wall about scanners picking up cloaks that was never mentioned
Quote: Who mentioned scanners? The fix specifically states that scanners will not pick up cloakers, but probes will (with an added amount of difficulty and innaccuracy). The lack of scanner means that you have to use every single probe, which means you need a near-max skilled probe pilot. This means teamwork, and effort.
then you stated that i took something out of context? try again.
all you're doing is treading water with your head barly above the surface by trying your best to bull**** your way to making a point.
anyone with any kind of cognitive thought can see your making blind alligations about a module that isn't broken.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:20:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:08:46
Originally by: Gorefacer The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
Meh.. I think it's unnecessary and lame tbh. It makes no difference to gameplay whether the player is afk or not, the attitude of others to a cloaked pilot would be the same either way and they would still be calling for more nerfs.
This would just irritate anyone who wants to cloak up while they go for a dump.
Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
The primary consequence of having your ship blown up is loss of ISK. The primary consequence of having a cloaker(s) in system is annoyance/loss of ISK to ratters/miners/logistics. If someone found a way to blow other peoples' ships up (ISK loss) while completely AFK (at work, at the bar, etc.) I would have a problem with that also. They are loosely comparable as far as I can tell.
Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:21:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat?
Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
agian, it's just paranoia. if you don't know where he is, how do you call it a threat? last i checked paranoia was a valid tactic and seems to be working especially good on you. it's sad really. THERE IS A BOOGIE MAN!!!
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:23:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Gorefacer
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:08:46
Originally by: Gorefacer The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
Meh.. I think it's unnecessary and lame tbh. It makes no difference to gameplay whether the player is afk or not, the attitude of others to a cloaked pilot would be the same either way and they would still be calling for more nerfs.
This would just irritate anyone who wants to cloak up while they go for a dump.
Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
The primary consequence of having your ship blown up is loss of ISK. The primary consequence of having a cloaker(s) in system is annoyance/loss of ISK to ratters/miners/logistics. If someone found a way to blow other peoples' ships up (ISK loss) while completely AFK (at work, at the bar, etc.) I would have a problem with that also. They are loosely comparable as far as I can tell.
Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
cloaking is much different from macroing. you can't compare them because macros are outside programs being used. cloaking is in game and was a tool ccp created.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:27:00 -
[343]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat?
Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
agian, it's just paranoia. if you don't know where he is, how do you call it a threat? last i checked paranoia was a valid tactic and seems to be working especially good on you. it's sad really. THERE IS A BOOGIE MAN!!!
No.
If there is a hostile in system, and you don't know whether they are AFK or not, the intelligent course of action is to assume they are active and act accordingly (escorts - split profits etc - log off or dock - ISK loss). The other course of action will eventually lead to ship loss (also ISK loss). Either option you take will impede your ability to operate in your own system.
It's not paranoia, its not being cowardly. Any calculated decision you make is going to hurt you one way or the other. This is fine if the player is active and intending this consequence. Achieving this AFK with no way to stop it is as fundamentally wrong as using macros for any thing in this game or any other MMO. From my perspective at least.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:29:00 -
[344]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Gorefacer
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:08:46
Originally by: Gorefacer The same difference AFK macro mining has to legitimate at keyboard mining. If your not there "in" the game, you shouldn't be able to accomplish a goal that would normally only come about by direct action on the players part. That is my opinion anyways.
Meh.. I think it's unnecessary and lame tbh. It makes no difference to gameplay whether the player is afk or not, the attitude of others to a cloaked pilot would be the same either way and they would still be calling for more nerfs.
This would just irritate anyone who wants to cloak up while they go for a dump.
Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
The primary consequence of having your ship blown up is loss of ISK. The primary consequence of having a cloaker(s) in system is annoyance/loss of ISK to ratters/miners/logistics. If someone found a way to blow other peoples' ships up (ISK loss) while completely AFK (at work, at the bar, etc.) I would have a problem with that also. They are loosely comparable as far as I can tell.
Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
cloaking is much different from macroing. you can't compare them because macros are outside programs being used. cloaking is in game and was a tool ccp created.
It's a tool CCP created that lets players achieve active goals while AFK, much like macros do. Hence why I feel there should be a change thats disallows AFKing but does not compromise cloaks in any way.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
annoing
Amarr MisFunk Inc. Frontline.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:31:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Gorefacer
It's not paranoia, its not being cowardly.
Yes it is and yes it is. But dont worry, everyone is out to get you
Another total carebear with nothing to do other than cry.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:31:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 30/08/2007 18:32:18
Originally by: Gorefacer Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
Yeah ok, you've got a point there. But it's a minor point, because its merit is dependant upon the amount of gameplay effect a cloaked pilot is actually able to achieve.
That is a matter of hot debate upon which the central issues still all hinge.
Originally by: Gorefacer Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
nice
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:32:00 -
[347]
Just because CCP created Ravens that could fit dual MWDs does not mean that they should have stayed in game. That argument will not work.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:33:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Originally by: Gorefacer Do you feel the same about Macro AFK mining? You could argue that if the person had time the macros are doing exactly what he would have done anyway, and so "makes no difference in gameplay". As far as I am concerned it is about a sense of fairplay and gaming on an even playing ground.
Yeah ok, you've got a point there. But it's a minor point, because it's merit varies dependant upon the amount of gameplay effect a cloaked pilot is able to achieve.
That is a matter of hot debate upon which the central issues still all hinge.
Originally by: Gorefacer Plus I said the timer could be 30minutes, I would say most people can **** in that time.
nice
True, I'm mainly arguing it for arguments sake. Like I said before, if it doesn't change it won't wreck my world.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:34:00 -
[349]
Originally by: sharkyballs you said using the scanner was the counter to the cloak
Erm. No.
I said using the scanner was the counter to PROBES. I ask that you read before carrying on with your inane drivel.
|
Exlegion
KnightRaven Research KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:36:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: cuteboylookingatyou Why would that remove your responsibility to arm yourself to a potential threat?
Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
And how exactly would you defend yourself without a proper cloak against the following scenario?
I don't know if it's already been said, since I haven't read all 11 pages yet, but here are my thoughts on the issue:
Quote: I travel through NPC 0.0 sec. Sometimes I go 5 jumps without an NPC station to dock in. While traveling very aware of my surroundings and checking who's in the system (i.e. NOT AFK'ING), I'm being actively hunted, sometimes by roaming gangs of 10 vs my one self. They'll drop bubbles near all gates once they know I'm in the system (which by the way, what's the counter to bubbles? ). The only thing that keeps me alive is my cloak, PERIOD. Yeah yeah, "bring your own blob... blah blah". My point is cloaks have other uses besides cloaking and AFK'ing. There are no counters to bubbles, and no counters to blobs.
And before you give a response such as "travel in numbers", make sure it's not an answer I may repack and send back to you. Also, creating safe spots in systems I will only be traveling through isn't reasonable, considering trips sometimes include 30+ jumps.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:37:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Exlegion And how exactly would you defend yourself without a proper cloak against the following scenario?
As i answered earlier - you don't sit still and allow yourself to be probed out.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:41:00 -
[352]
Originally by: annoing
Originally by: Gorefacer
It's not paranoia, its not being cowardly.
Yes it is and yes it is. But dont worry, everyone is out to get you
Another total carebear with nothing to do other than cry.
Do you have something to add to the debate? Or will you just continue to sling juvenille insults at people with different ideas than you?
I explained why it's not paranoia, I also explained why its not cowardly. "yes it is" is an exceptionally poor counter arguement and alludes to nothing but ignorance. Also I haven't done any type of carebearing in weeks due to nonstop PVP defending home system.
Show us your obvious cunning with your next reply.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Exlegion
KnightRaven Research KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:41:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Exlegion on 30/08/2007 18:42:42
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Exlegion And how exactly would you defend yourself without a proper cloak against the following scenario?
As i answered earlier - you don't sit still and allow yourself to be probed out.
I was being hunted through every celestial body in one system by 10+ players INCLUDING inties and other fast ships. It would have been only a matter of minutes before they caught up to me and locked me. Even when I cloaked they were hunting me by using their drones. Gates were bubbled and players on other sides just in case as well.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:43:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Exlegion I was being hunted thRough every celestial body on one system by 10+ players INCLUDING inties and other fast ships. It would have been only a matter of minutes before they caught up to me and locked me. Even when I cloaked they were hunting me by using their drones.
You went through 10 celestial bodies and didn't make a single safe spot? Well. That was a bit silly of you.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:47:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Gorefacer
If there is a hostile in system, and you don't know whether they are AFK or not, the intelligent course of action is to assume they are active and act accordingly (escorts - split profits etc - log off or dock - ISK loss). The other course of action will eventually lead to ship loss (also ISK loss). Either option you take will impede your ability to operate in your own system.
Here we go with the Carebear comments again.....
Everytime HighSec player whine about Jetcan theft, getting ganked, Suiciders, Lowsec not being profitable to mine in, etc guess what they are told? FLY WITH FRIENDS, Protect your miners, watch local, dock if there are hostiles, etc etc etc.... And when they claim it cuts their profits? Waaah, quit being a n00b and a Carebear.
You are in 0.0 space. Its supposed to be dangerous, you are supposed to have friendlies covering you. The excuse "someone we can't kill is hurting our profits because we can't mine/rat/haul alone" is NOT an excuse to nerf anything. Indeed its a reason to keep it the way it is; that whole risk vs. reward thing we get thrown in our face all the time.
Now not being able to secure a system where you have Sov I can understand to an extent, which is why I agree with the POS-based Sov required sensor arrays to help detect. If you are a renter and don't have Sov? Cry to your landlords, you don't "own" it.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:47:00 -
[356]
I'm confused as to why people are resistant to my idea. It doesn't hurt the workings of any cloaks at all.
Originally that was the main response I heard, "dont nerf cloaks". This won't, just won't let you cloak in a system for more than 30min if your not at the keyboard. You could even make food, watch TV, and just click the timer once every 30min, but at least this way you can't go to sleep or work and stay like that 23/7.
Why would anyone like the idea of cloaking in a system AFK all day to the point of defending it on the forums if as you claim "it makes no difference to gameplay at all". In that case it should be a moot point, nobody would bother staying logged in while theyre at work cloaked in a system and they would just log.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:50:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Exlegion No. 10+ pPLAYERS, not Cel bodies. I wouldn't have made it to 10 spots in time. As soon as I entered system they went into hunting mode.
Good for them. A team of players using their skills as pilots to counter the cloaking module and your evasion tactics. I don't see a problem.
Originally by: sharkyballs yes, you are correct, i typed the word cloak when i meant to type the word probes. with probes in there my point was still made.
Is english your first language?
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:53:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Gorefacer I'm confused as to why people are resistant to my idea. It doesn't hurt the workings of any cloaks at all.
Some sort of pop-up that does NOT drop you from cloak before asking, is set at a decent time-frame to not interfere with Covert Ops (30 minutes you suggested) and doesn't break scans, warp, etc would be acceptable. It would nerf AFK players without breaking cloaking. It would have to move about the screen to make macroes harder, but no biggie.
They don't want that. They want the cloaks nerfed completely except for a select few that are using Coverts. They want to destroy modules, not balance. They want to Carebear in peace happily sitting behind bubble camps and warned by all-seeing Local intelligence.
Nerf AFKers, not cloaks.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:57:00 -
[359]
Edited by: Elmicker on 30/08/2007 18:58:21
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Nerf AFKers, not cloaks.
AFKing is a legitimate tactic. AFKing while cloaked is imbalanced. Cloaking is a legitmate tactic. The AFK timer/confirmation fix affects all players adversely. Probing cloakers leaves 99.99% of cloakers unnaffected, but seriously hinders AFK cloakers. I honestly don't understand why you STILL think probing cloakers will ruin exploration. Just set your speed to 120m/s and you'll never be caught.
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 18:59:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Gorefacer
If there is a hostile in system, and you don't know whether they are AFK or not, the intelligent course of action is to assume they are active and act accordingly (escorts - split profits etc - log off or dock - ISK loss). The other course of action will eventually lead to ship loss (also ISK loss). Either option you take will impede your ability to operate in your own system.
Here we go with the Carebear comments again.....
Everytime HighSec player whine about Jetcan theft, getting ganked, Suiciders, Lowsec not being profitable to mine in, etc guess what they are told? FLY WITH FRIENDS, Protect your miners, watch local, dock if there are hostiles, etc etc etc.... And when they claim it cuts their profits? Waaah, quit being a n00b and a Carebear.
You are in 0.0 space. Its supposed to be dangerous, you are supposed to have friendlies covering you. The excuse "someone we can't kill is hurting our profits because we can't mine/rat/haul alone" is NOT an excuse to nerf anything. Indeed its a reason to keep it the way it is; that whole risk vs. reward thing we get thrown in our face all the time.
Now not being able to secure a system where you have Sov I can understand to an extent, which is why I agree with the POS-based Sov required sensor arrays to help detect. If you are a renter and don't have Sov? Cry to your landlords, you don't "own" it.
Did you actually read my posts? I said the threat is fine, having to fly with friends is fine AS LONG AS THIS IS FORCED BY PEOPLE NOT AFK. AFK is the issue, not the "danger" of 0.0. Please do us all a favor and read all posts of a poster you are responding to.
Originally by: Gorefacer This is fine if the player is active and intending this consequence.
- From a later post, regarding forcing people to travel in groups etc etc.
Also I never asked for a nerf for ANYTHING. You missed on just about every "point" you made.
You sound all bitter about some other argument about high sec space. Don't get so emotional. That was another topic, it shouldn't dominate your mind while you drag it into other threads.
Also I currently DO NOT carebear at all. Was POS killing today and in roaming gangs the last couple days.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:00:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Elmicker
AFKing is a legitimate tactic. AFKing while cloaked is imbalanced. Cloaking is a legitmate tactic. The AFK timer/confirmation fix affects all players adversely. Probing cloakers leaves 99.99% of cloakers unnaffected, but seriously hinders AFK cloakers. I honestly don't understand why you STILL think probing cloakers will ruin exploration. Just set your speed to 120m/s and you'll never be caught.
No, your suggestion doesn't effect 99.99% of COVERT OPS cloaks. No non-Covert cloak can get anywhere near your 120m/s.
Other cloaks would be extremely vulnerable, while having considerably higher drawback than the module you want to leave semi-intact.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:03:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Gorefacer
Did you actually read my posts? I said the threat is fine, having to fly with friends is fine AS LONG AS THIS IS FORCED BY PEOPLE NOT AFK. AFK is the issue, not the "danger" of 0.0. Please do us all a favor and read all posts of a poster you are responding to.
Which is why I followed up to the other post you made about why no one has commented on your proposal
If your pop-up asking for cloaking to continue came BEFORE the de-cloak happened, it is perfectly acceptable. If you de-cloak and then have to re-cloak, you just screwed Covert operations. You wanted the pop-up before, I can live with that easily.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Exlegion
KnightRaven Research KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:05:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Exlegion on 30/08/2007 19:07:01
Originally by: Elmicker Good for them. A team of players using their skills as pilots to counter the cloaking module and your evasion tactics. I don't see a problem.
Basically, enter system and die? And I would have had better chances at evading them if their numbers would have been less.
Now if a player is smart enough to fit a cloak while traveling in dangerous space that's not fair .
It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance of impenetrability. Is that fair?
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:06:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Gorefacer
Did you actually read my posts? I said the threat is fine, having to fly with friends is fine AS LONG AS THIS IS FORCED BY PEOPLE NOT AFK. AFK is the issue, not the "danger" of 0.0. Please do us all a favor and read all posts of a poster you are responding to.
Which is why I followed up to the other post you made about why no one has commented on your proposal
If your pop-up asking for cloaking to continue came BEFORE the de-cloak happened, it is perfectly acceptable. If you de-cloak and then have to re-cloak, you just screwed Covert operations. You wanted the pop-up before, I can live with that easily.
Ah cool, I see that. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:07:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Exlegion It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance impenetrability. Is that fair?
Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:08:00 -
[366]
gorefacer, i don't actually have a problem with the cloak turning itself off after a while. that was the first thing i thought of as well to help the afk situation. but that's not being argued here. it's the ones arguing that you need a probe to do it. i think you would agree somewhat that the cloak would be broken if you could be found that easily.
then they say, oh but it would be hard, it would take a gang or something. which is crap because with full skills and a little practice probing can be very fast. i do it all the time. exploration and ships. also the ones arguing for the cloak arn't going to write the code, so how do they know?
then they say, warp around safespots if you see a probe on scanner. which i would reply, why the fark would i have a cloak on my ship if i wanted to decloak to warp around? i can do that without a cloak.
it's a whine from paranioa, lazyness, and a total lack of logic from carebares that apparently want to "feel" safe in a system they claim in 0.0 (the dangerous space). built right into the module are negatives that make it impractical for normal combat and create the balance.
|
Exlegion
KnightRaven Research KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:08:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Exlegion on 30/08/2007 19:09:49
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Exlegion It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance impenetrability. Is that fair?
Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you want to be able to do? And no, at the moment you can't do that.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:11:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 30/08/2007 19:09:49
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Exlegion It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance impenetrability. Is that fair?
Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you want to be able to do? And no, at the moment you can't do that.
I think he means that if he could probe you, he wouldnt have time before you escaped anyways.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:16:00 -
[369]
Originally by: sharkyballs gorefacer, i don't actually have a problem with the cloak turning itself off after a while. that was the first thing i thought of as well to help the afk situation. but that's not being argued here. it's the ones arguing that you need a probe to do it. i think you would agree somewhat that the cloak would be broken if you could be found that easily.
then they say, oh but it would be hard, it would take a gang or something. which is crap because with full skills and a little practice probing can be very fast. i do it all the time. exploration and ships. also the ones arguing for the cloak arn't going to write the code, so how do they know?
then they say, warp around safespots if you see a probe on scanner. which i would reply, why the fark would i have a cloak on my ship if i wanted to decloak to warp around? i can do that without a cloak.
it's a whine from paranioa, lazyness, and a total lack of logic from carebares that apparently want to "feel" safe in a system they claim in 0.0 (the dangerous space). built right into the module are negatives that make it impractical for normal combat and create the balance.
True, I suppose my argument is a deviation from the original one. Well, my main problem is with AFK cloakers and their effects on a system. Everything else seems secondary in importance.
Also I don't know enough about probing or cloaking to add much in the way of constructive comments along those lines. I think I made my stance clear and most seem to agree. I guess I'm done here, fun lively debate, I'm going to sleep now.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:23:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Elmicker However, the reason "there's a 2mil ISK module that can give any ship an easy 1-click way out of any situation" is.
A cloak does not "give any ship an easy 1-click way out of any situation". Also, it is already intrinsically balanced by disallowing cloaked ships from interacting.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:27:00 -
[371]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Exlegion It seems to me you want to be able to lock a system down without any chance impenetrability. Is that fair?
Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
get out of 0.0 and this conversation please. by answering that question the way you did you have made yourself, from your own words, a carebear. you just lost any respect. "lock a system down without any chance impenetrability." = safe in 0.0? lol go to jita please.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:34:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Elmicker on 30/08/2007 19:34:53
Originally by: Exlegion Correct me if I'm wrong
Ok
Quote: but isn't that what you want to be able to do?
No. I wish to be able to probe down cloakers under the current mechanics, where, to probe someone down in less than 30 seconds, i'd have to know exactly which grid they're on. In this case, i've already seen them cloak so i'm better off flying straight towards their location. Otherwise, i have to use system-wide probes and work my way down, which will take several minutes and yield an innaccurate result.
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds A cloak does not "give any ship an easy 1-click way out of any situation".
Ok. It gives you a 1-click way out of any situation prior to actually being locked by hostiles.
Quote: Also, it is already intrinsically balanced by disallowing cloaked ships from interacting.
You're still interacting through your being present in-system.
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Elmicker Yes. Because obviously, i can drop a probe, scan you down, decloak you and kill you. between you cloaking and you evading the gang.
get out of 0.0 and this conversation please. by answering that question the way you did you have made yourself, from your own words, a carebear. you just lost any respect. "lock a system down without any chance impenetrability." = safe in 0.0? lol go to jita please.
Can anyone translate this for me? How, by making a sarcastic comment about the speed of probes and their viability for decloaking on-grid cloakers am i showing me to be a carebear?
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:46:00 -
[373]
elmicker, maybe you should not be sarcastic to me after you insulted me and called me an idiot a few pages back. what you're saying would not be confused and then the sarcasm would show. you're confusing enough as it is.
i thought you were being serious because every other post you've made has in a way sounded like that.
did you expect me to laugh with you? this is ink and paper, i can't see your face.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:51:00 -
[374]
Originally by: sharkyballs elmicker, maybe you should not be sarcastic to me after you insulted me and called me an idiot a few pages back.
I didn't call you an idiot. I quoted someone calling you an idiot then poked fun at your alliance.
Quote: what you're saying would not be confused and then the sarcasm would show.
Would it help if i added eight s each time i'm sarcastic?
Quote: you're confusing enough as it is.
Again, is english your first language?
|
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:53:00 -
[375]
Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 19:55:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
Damn you, I was waiting for another "CCP already said" post before I mentioned that
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:01:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
Damn you, I was waiting for another "CCP already said" post before I mentioned that
i thought the same thing
p.s. whether english is my fisrt or fourth language isn't the issue and the question sounds like you're setting me up. i've made my point. i'm done arguing with you.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:03:00 -
[378]
And then we can sit AFK cloaked all day, since CCP said covert pop cloaks would not be affected by the changes
RABBLE RABBLE woot woot
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:05:00 -
[379]
Edited by: Elmicker on 30/08/2007 20:06:46
Originally by: Bendit And then we can sit AFK cloaked all day, since CCP said covert pop cloaks would not be affected by the changes
And CCP said the Buy/Sell orders forum would be removed by today.
Anyway, the probe change, even if applied to cov ops cloaks, doesn't affect those who are their keyboards. Or even anyone who decided to fly downwards at any speed.
|
pilgrim8
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:09:00 -
[380]
until something is done bout this be creative geesh make it harder for him to want to decloak
some peeps try and fake him to uncloak(cheap mining ship partially equipped, etc
try these things
most times you will have a miner and prob 1 tanker/guard/watcher
have other peeps in your corp or alliance come visit the spot youre in from time to time. stay minute or 2 then leave. make it very random but continuous. you can do the same thing with a covert ops ship. have him warp to where they are at sit bit and cloak. the hostile wont know for sure if they are still there. and yes someone can from time to time sit there also. if they can do it so can you.
support your corpies/alliance mates
maybe have another covo ship come in and cloak.have the tanker logoff (fake a dc) if no rats in belt. the hostile wont know for sure if its a trick or not
heres better one. do the same thing BUT
have a bs/bc whatever undock go to a belt and cloak. bit later have the miner tanker/undock and go to that belt and start mining. after abit have the tanker logoff (if no rats in belt atm) the hostile will not know theres a 3rd person in that belt watching over everythig. even if you dont try the logoff thing hes still at a disavantage as you are with him. i.e. not knowing who is where
if a hauler needs to syste, jump to move goods.
before he does this have someone either undock while before or have someone jump in system or someone ratting go near the gate hes going to travel and cloak and sit there. guard the gate for your fellows. the hostile wont know if you are there when the hauler does him thing. have him geard up maybe to take out a covo ship in shortest time possible
the hostile has everyone so paranoid about where he is everyone is afraid to do anything
MAKE HIM PARANOID...
when someone is mining/ratting its important someone swings in every now and then to show support. its called a rollby. (i used to be a police officer 9 years worth). he has to know that you guys are serious about your system and will be just as devious as he is
the hostile i bet will most likely be somenear near the station to see who undocks/ship type so when you do try something never go directly there from station.
i know so many peeps like to sit afk instation but serious youre ina corp/aliance. undock for 5 minutes every now and then to show the hostile you guys are serious about making him afraid to uncloak/give up his position
just my 2cccc
|
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:17:00 -
[381]
OK, I'll try to say it in a different way. There are two problems.
1) Normal ships going into invul-mode by cloaking: This is just wrong. You could have a friggin titan in your system waiting to strike, meanwhile completely invulnerable. This is also how 0.0 farmers survive.
2) Covops performing tactical operations while completely invulnerable. Cloaked covops can do something: they can probe, they can use their scanner, they can check local. Take away all those abilities and maybe I'd be OK with this, but I'd much rather making them probable. It's not like they couldn't move around to still be invulnerable even after this change. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:20:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
I like your sig.
|
Pheonix Kanan
Caldari Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:22:00 -
[383]
Originally by: pilgrim8
(Text)
I think this is the reason why CCP is having such a hard time agreeing with the people who want the cloak nerf/scan probe buff. There ways around a single guy in your system (which can include negotiating with his alliance =P) and instead of using those ways, you run to the forums and cry.
Originally by: Curzon Dax *shrugs* Play the game the way you want to, and respect other peoples' ability to do the same.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:32:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Pheonix Kanan There ways around a single guy in your system (which can include negotiating with his alliance =P) and instead of using those ways, you run to the forums and cry.
Nice.
An entire alliance infrastructure held to ransom by one man and his cloak.
Oh, the balance, you just have to love it.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:33:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Boy, a lot of people in this thread are going to be butt-hurt when they read about CCP making recon T2 battleships. Thanks for the buff CCP, fix amarr next please!
Damn you, I was waiting for another "CCP already said" post before I mentioned that
Funny you mention that, as my first thought was that the only way they'd introduce Covert BS is bundled with a cloaking overhaul. I could be entirely wrong of course, but it actually gave me a little hope that some positive (imo) changes to the cloaking system are still on the way.
* * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Pheonix Kanan
Caldari Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:38:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Elmicker
Nice.
An entire alliance infrastructure held to ransom by one man and his cloak.
Oh, the balance, you just have to love it.
If you fear a single guy in your system, maybe you should consider high-sec, where you don't have to your about rats in your stuff. Why should an alliance be impervious to infiltration?
Originally by: Curzon Dax *shrugs* Play the game the way you want to, and respect other peoples' ability to do the same.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:46:00 -
[387]
Edited by: Elmicker on 30/08/2007 20:47:04
Originally by: Pheonix Kanan If you fear a single guy in your system...
It has nothing to do with fear. As explained earlier in the thread, no matter what you do, you will lose income from the presence of hostiles either through either splitting income with guards, not using the system, or eventually losing your ship.
If someone is fully capable of defending their space, why shouldn't they be able to remove a cloaked hostile the same as any other? It might, and should, take more effort due to the hostile's cloak, but it should be doable.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:49:00 -
[388]
Elmicker u havent replied to what I asked you yet...
But since im so nice, I will help you, and add some extra
Some of the stuff u have been posting:
Quote: No ship, in space, logged on should EVER be 100% safe. This is the core principle of eve.
What about ships in POS?
Quote: If you're sitting still, carebearing solo in an area where you're likely to be shot at, then frankly, you deserve to be shot at.
Wouldnt that apply to any 0.0 alliances who gets a hostile cloaker into system. Group together, mine, npc and so on together. 1 covert/recon wouldn`t be able to do **** to you.
Quote: The OP is about how a defense gang was unable to engage cloaked sniping battleship gangs.
How will your proposal do anything? U said:
Quote: They would be unaffected, assuming they never sit still for hours at a time and go AFK.
So your defence gang would still not be able to do anything.
ANother of your posts:
Quote: And yes, i know how much this change would hurt recons and cov. ops, i almost exclusively fly Arazus.
But at the same time you tells us that this will have no effect on the ships for people that are not afk. Make up your mind please.
You keep saying that cloaks need a counter.
Then I wonder what are the counter to a probe? Yeay yeay, I know you said:
Quote: Paying attention to your scanner and warping away
So you want a counter module to cloaks, but not for probes?
And no, scanner is not a counter. Yes, you can see the probe, but you can not counter it. Run but not counter.
I thought they put probes into the game to find SS, then they put cloaks into the game to avoid probes...
Quote: Defending yourself against a threat in eve can only be done effectively in two ways. You run away (not an option), or you remove the threat (impossible).
Why is it not an option? And why is it impossible?
Quote: Originally by: Exlegion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And how exactly would you defend yourself without a proper cloak against the following scenario? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As i answered earlier - you don't sit still and allow yourself to be probed out.
SO how do you defend yourself against a cloaker?
Quote: However, the reason "there's a 2mil ISK module that can give any ship an easy 1-click way out of any situation" is.
Ehm, actually, first you have to get out of the situation and into a SS before you can cloak. Then your safe.
Quote: AFKing is a legitimate tactic. AFKing while cloaked is imbalanced. Cloaking is a legitmate tactic.
So then you choose the easy way. Boost probes to the rediculous. You try to act all smart and stuff, but it completely fails when you at the same time admit that you dont know how to fix that, and are locked to a solution on how YOU want it. Without even considering other options, or trying to discuss.
All you do is calling cloaked pilots turds, ******s or morons if people bring up scenarios where the cloaked pilot get killed.
Yeah, way to go.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:01:00 -
[389]
Edited by: Elmicker on 30/08/2007 21:02:29
Originally by: Bendit Elmicker u havent replied to what I asked you yet...
Then i apologise, whoring 2 threads and chatting on IRC can cause you to miss some things :P
Quote: What about ships in POS?
This is the core exception. However, POSes can be removed.
Quote: Wouldnt that apply to any 0.0 alliances who gets a hostile cloaker into system. Group together, mine, npc and so on together. 1 covert/recon wouldn`t be able to do **** to you.
Yes. But you've grouped together to do a job that SHOULD be doable by 1-2 people. You've slashed your income. One guy with a 2mil ISK cloak who is doing absolutely nothing has just screwed all of you. Then of course, the second you do start mining/ratting, the cloaker is on the horn to his friends who get a gank squad ready to come slaughter you.
Quote: So your defence gang would still not be able to do anything.
Cloaked battleships go at about 5 m/s. They're sitting still, unless they decloak, in which case they can be found by normal means. Cruisers and frigates, however, would still be able to move at a reasonable speed while cloaked. Perhaps sufficient to dodge a couple of decloakers, perhaps not. Depends on the skill of the decloakers.
Quote: But at the same time you tells us that this will have no effect on the ships for people that are not afk. Make up your mind please.
I have made up my mind. I fly an arazu and buzzard for my cloakers. I know that this change would affect them in no way whatsoever, assuming they never go AFK.
Quote: Run but not counter.
Cloaking will still be a counter, it just won't be 100%, 1-click omgiwin counter. No other counter in the game is this absolute, so neither should cloaking be.
Quote: Why is it not an option? And why is it impossible?
It is not an option because the systems affected are usually outpost systems with 60bil+ ISK invested into them. To run away and leave them unused is simply not an option. The impossible was referring to finding and destroying cloaking ships. Currently impossible.
Quote: SO how do you defend yourself against a cloaker?
You shoot him, when he uncloaks. However, most cloakers who use this tactic are not stupid. They will not fall for your average "lookie me, i'm an untanked badger!!" trick. They will never decloak. They can never be found. They can never be removed.
Quote: Ehm, actually, first you have to get out of the situation and into a SS before you can cloak. Then your safe.
I added that onto the statement later .
Quote: So then you choose the easy way. Boost probes to the rediculous.
I'd hardly call taking 25 minutes to find a single hostile and maybe decloak him ridiculous. 26 seconds with an instant 0m landing would be ridiculous.
Quote: Without even considering other options, or trying to discuss.
Erm. I did. I considered the effects of what an Idle timer or forced response box would do.
Anything else?
|
Pheonix Kanan
Caldari Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:08:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Elmicker
It has nothing to do with fear. As explained earlier in the thread, no matter what you do, you will lose income from the presence of hostiles either through either splitting income with guards, not using the system, or eventually losing your ship.
It does have to do with fear. You fear that the guy might not be afk and come and hurt your little mining op. So you want him removed, right? Then remove him. He comes to attack, blow him up. He gets away, wait until he tries again. Soon he won't be attacking your carebears because every time he does, a gang drops on him and he has to leave. You don't need guard, you just need to not be in 0.0 if you can't defend yourself.
Originally by: Elmicker
If someone is fully capable of defending their space, why shouldn't they be able to remove a cloaked hostile the same as any other? It might, and should, take more effort due to the hostile's cloak, but it should be doable.
Then petition for a POS module to do it. A POS is in your space defending you, probes are used by roaming gang to pinpoint the safe spots of ratters. A POS is used to help defend your system from incoming hostiles, probes are used to gank people. I think the anti-cloak arguement would have a much better chance at getting POS module that detects cloaks than scan probes being able to detect them.
Originally by: Curzon Dax *shrugs* Play the game the way you want to, and respect other peoples' ability to do the same.
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:36:00 -
[391]
It's not necessarily the cloaker who attacks. In most cases he is merely a scout who will call upon his friends to come in and do the real disruption of the system. He can also provide hostiles with 23/7 information on gatecamps and the like for when you do have traps set up for hostiles.
Also, if the solution is POS-based, then we'll just see ISK farmers retreat entirely into the major 0.0 alliances, or sit in NPC space, where they'll enjoy total immunity in their actions. I'm after the probe changes more to engage isk farmers than to remove AFK cloakers - i don't live in sovereign 0.0, i couldn't give a flying monkey's if someone is trying to disrupt our operations.
|
Cassius Longinus
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:38:00 -
[392]
Originally by: Elmicker
Yes. But you've grouped together to do a job that SHOULD be doable by 1-2 people. You've slashed your income. One guy with a 2mil ISK cloak who is doing absolutely nothing has just screwed all of you.
To be fair, that character is not making any income while you are not making any income. I don't see anything particularly problematic about that. AFKing doesn't seem quite fair, but pro-probers don't seem to particularly care about that argument.
Adding a gangmate (thus halving your income) seems like an appropriate and balanced counter to a cloaked -10 in system to me.
Honestly, I have very little stake in this issue. I'm on both sides of the cloak every day- I lose isk when cloaking in my carebear boat (hiding like a coward no doubt), and lose kills when those ravens run-cloak-log while I'm out on patrol.
I would hope that any change that eventually comes down the pipe maintains that balance.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:42:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Cassius Longinus To be fair, that character is not making any income while you are not making any income.
In 99% of cases, the character is an alt who'd likely be doing nothing anyway. They lose nothing with no effort, we lose stacks of isk, and only don't lose everything because we're willing to put effort in to defend ourselves.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:00:00 -
[394]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Cassius Longinus To be fair, that character is not making any income while you are not making any income.
In 99% of cases, the character is an alt who'd likely be doing nothing anyway. They lose nothing with no effort, we lose stacks of isk, and only don't lose everything because we're willing to put effort in to defend ourselves.
in a debate it would be prudent to use facts rather than assumptions. 99% is an assumption. just like afk is. you would be better understood and your points would be much more valid if most of your rebuttals where not that.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:11:00 -
[395]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 30/08/2007 22:12:25 It really has very little to do with the reasons for what aspect of the game mechanics we like or dislike, and very much to do with what's fair in the game mechanics. There's no difference in selfishly hoarding a defense that has no counter, than hoarding a ship that can't be killed in ANY 1 vs. 1 situation.
Here is a game mechanic that grants invulnerability, and it needs to be changed. There's those who agree, and then there's selfish carebears...
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:20:00 -
[396]
Originally by: Elmicker It has nothing to do with fear. As explained earlier in the thread, no matter what you do, you will lose income from the presence of hostiles either through either splitting income with guards, not using the system, or eventually losing your ship.
If someone is fully capable of defending their space, why shouldn't they be able to remove a cloaked hostile the same as any other? It might, and should, take more effort due to the hostile's cloak, but it should be doable.
That's the crux of the whole issue, Elmicker.
You *shouldn't* be able to to remove a cloaked hostile in the manner you want.
You *should* have to put up with altering your play style to account for the possibility of sneak attacks, even in a system you have sovereignty over.
That is my opinion and you have given me no reason to think otherwise. The real problem, as I see it, is your own reluctance to adapt to a minor threat, when you already have everything else your own way.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:24:00 -
[397]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Here is a game mechanic that grants invulnerability, and it needs to be changed.
It doesn't grant invulnerability numbnuts, it grants indetectability. There is a huge difference between those two terms and what they mean strategically.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov There's those who agree, and then there's selfish carebears...
Brilliant argument! I'm finally convinced...
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 23:48:00 -
[398]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 30/08/2007 23:49:16
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Brilliant argument! I'm finally convinced...
What about all these selfish carebears who want to fence off a piece of space for their own private use, but can't be bothered to police it with the tools they already have?
Well I'm genuinely sorry I didn't start with that first then if it was that easy.
You're fencing off a piece of space by hiding? Is that like hobos sleeping under the overpass?
Cloaking hobos?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 00:30:00 -
[399]
Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 00:34:16
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You *shouldn't* be able to to remove a cloaked hostile in the manner you want.
Why not? He's in space. And he's safe. No space is safe. Not even safe space.
Quote: You *should* have to put up with altering your play style to account for the possibility of sneak attacks, even in a system you have sovereignty over.
And he should have to alter his play style for the possibility that he might not just be undetectable and untouchable.
No one should be 100% safe outside of a POS or station. Ever. Aside from all the prattle about psychological effects, percieved risks, their effects and carebearishness, that is the point that rises to the fore and the point that SHOULD be debated.
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds It doesn't grant invulnerability numbnuts, it grants indetectability. There is a huge difference between those two terms and what they mean strategically.
Yeah, with invulnerability your ship type, location and activity (and thus your actual threat level) can be determined and effectively protected against. With indetectability, all those variables are indeterminate, and thus by the nature of eve all very high risk.
Quote: What about all these selfish carebears who want to fence off a piece of space for their own private use
So what if it's selfish? You choose to stay in empire and run a 7-man mission running alliance, we choose to go out into 0.0, shoot people and take space for ourselves. You're welcome to come and try and rid us of our selfish ways if you wish.
Quote: but can't be bothered to police it with the tools they already have?
That's what you're failing to notice. There are no anti-cloak tools. At all. Beyond seeing where they're cloaked and heading towards it, there is NOTHING you can do about it.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 00:56:00 -
[400]
Man, I just cba anymore.
Whatever you manage to get nerfed, better players will still mess with your plans.
Originally by: Elmicker You choose to stay in empire and run a 7-man mission running alliance, we choose to go out into 0.0, shoot people and take space for ourselves. You're welcome to come and try and rid us of our selfish ways if you wish.
You think you know me? I watched the Russians blow up your CEO last week while I was, guess what, cloaked!
|
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 01:09:00 -
[401]
Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 01:09:06
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You think you know me? I watched the Russians blow up your CEO last week while I was, guess what, cloaked!
You watched Riey get popped? Odd. He's never used for pvp.. He's not even listed on any KILLS on our killboard. But, for good measure, i checked RA's, UNL's and AAA's KB for entries and found one hauler loss from a year ago. Can you elaborate?
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive Animal.
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 01:24:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 01:09:06
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You think you know me? I watched the Russians blow up your CEO last week while I was, guess what, cloaked!
You watched Riey get popped? Odd. He's never used for pvp.. He's not even listed on any KILLS on our killboard. But, for good measure, i checked RA's, UNL's and AAA's KB for entries and found one hauler loss from a year ago. Can you elaborate?
Bah! There I go spouting without checking my facts!
The guy who got popped, Merrick Tolkien, is in your allies' corp, Freefall Securities and he doesn't appear to be the CEO now, although I could have sworn that he was when I checked last.
Anyway, you hopefully take my point that you can't assume you know what someone may get up to, just by looking at their corp history.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 02:44:00 -
[403]
still no fix for whien threads? Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Petstretsi Zuborov
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 04:45:00 -
[404]
Edited by: Petstretsi Zuborov on 31/08/2007 04:46:23 .
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 04:47:00 -
[405]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Man, I just cba anymore.
Whatever you manage to get nerfed, better players will still mess with your plans.
That's exactly the point of this thread.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 07:10:00 -
[406]
This is still going on ? I can't believe that.
Cloaks as such are fine. They exist to enable some tactics that are hard to counter (notice the hard part, not impossible).
If you are nervous about a cloaker in local, then removing local will fix that. There is no need to remove cloaks in that way. Obviously you'll be even more nervous without local.
A competent dictor+prober duo will screw the day of any safespot warping sh1thead in 0.0. Warp bubbles at key locations do the same.
Farmers with cloaks are a PITA, but you can screw their day by the same tactic. Put up a cloaked alt in the system and they will stay cloaked all day and do nothing.
If you want to make cloaks detectable by probes or anything else, you can as well remove them. Beause you are removing the only reason for their existence.
P.S: cloaks in lowsec are a bit of a problem, but so are Motherships (and those are far more dangerous).
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Shanur
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 08:19:00 -
[407]
Here's a solution that will remove all cloaking threads without nerfing a cloaker's ability to "pause" the game by hiding in a SS:
The whole point seems to be that some players can not endure the sight of a non blue player in their local chat. They get all riled up and disrupted where good corps would simply fly out some escorts to their industrial/ratting operations and try to probe out the ship. Seeing as the problem is not so much the pressence of the AFK cloaker but the fact that he shows up in local, why not:
Remove local for 0.0 and be done with a whole slew of nullsec issues? |
Ares Lightfeather
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 10:07:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 31/08/2007 10:08:06 I agree with the last post... with a slightly different conclusion.
Only people saying something should appear in local, and as a "balancing act" to the loss of a perfect reliable intel tool that should never have existed in Eve, regular ships in cloak should be able to be probed.
In order to make the game more dangerous, also make a t3 cloak enabling regular ships to warp cloaked at reduced speed.
Finally, make a special cloak for cov-ops that enable them to shoot and use a jump gate while cloaked.
That'll make Eve more dangerous, and fun.
(If some were saying the balance between cloaks / absence of probing is fine, I say boost both ).
-- Siggie ! Come back here ! --
Originally by: Victor Valka
Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job
Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract |
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 15:25:00 -
[409]
Devs? Update?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 15:33:00 -
[410]
Originally by: Shanur ...fly out some escorts to their industrial/ratting operations...
You're a genius. Really. I mean. Like. No one's EVER suggested that in this thread.
People get riled up BECAUSE they have to fly escorts. You utterly *****your income into the ground against someone who is probably exerting no actual effort.
Quote: and try to probe out the ship.
Quote: Remove local for 0.0 and be done with a whole slew of nullsec issues?
You've seen the effects that 1 unknown target has on a system. Removing local would put (i know this will sound stupid) an unknown number of unknown targets in every system. These problems arise through unquantifiable threats. Infinite threat in every system = dead 0.0 overnight.
|
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:00:00 -
[411]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 16:01:03
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Shanur... You utterly *****your income into the ground against someone who is probably exerting no actual effort.[/quote
there you go using that assumption again, "prabably". your entire argument has been that. you're assuming somthing about a theoretical threat and whining about it. you don't even know it's there.
also, you should ALWAYS have escorts for your miners or industry for protection in 0.0. if you don't you're asking them to be killed. removing cloaks doesn't do away with that need. your just scared cause you can't see the hostile, therefore disrupting your day.
agian, you still havn't proved anything except that you want an easy button to kill a module that does exactly what it's suppose to do.
|
ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:01:00 -
[412]
Originally by: Elmicker Infinite threat in every system = dead 0.0 overnight.
Unknown is not the same as infinite. Maybe some of you 0.0 carebears would man up and learn to have AT LEAST ONE defensive ship for all your carebear activities.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. He can even rat while you mine or pve, there is no reason you should die in the 15 seconds it takes him to warp to you.
|
Jensen Blayloc
Minmatar Galtech Security Services
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:26:00 -
[413]
So, here is an idea. Get rid of Local, add the hacking gates skills to show passage (or potentially hide passage), then let high end scanners and probe modules capable of sensing "gravimetric disturbances" that would let people know there are cloakers, just not any closer than 30 degrees of accuracy to direction (and then only with high scanning skill). Then the fun would ensue. |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:52:00 -
[414]
zomg 0.0 isnt safe NERF CLOAKING Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 17:01:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc So, here is an idea. Get rid of Local, add the hacking gates skills to show passage (or potentially hide passage), then let high end scanners and probe modules capable of sensing "gravimetric disturbances" that would let people know there are cloakers, just not any closer than 30 degrees of accuracy to direction (and then only with high scanning skill). Then the fun would ensue.
If you are trying to probe someone out, you have to be within 20AU. If you get a hit, depending on the size of the ship's signal strength, you'll get a warp to point that's probably in the neighborhood of 1000km -> 25000km. You destroy your old probe and then select a 10AU probe and scan again. The chances of receiving a result are greater with a 10AU probe than a 20AU probe, so you probably will receive a hit on your first try. The warp to point with this probe is usually 150km->750km, again depending on the ships signal strength, which is usually very low for smaller ships. This is when you drop a 5AU probe and make your final scan, the result of this scan gives you a warp to point that is 0m from your target.
3 probes, 2 scans within 13 AU of the target, which means he sees you on the directional scanner, easy enough to evade - just warp to another safe spot greater than 10AU for 100% successful evasion.
If the person probing is using a covops frigate with a Recon Probe Launcher, at high skill levels and mods, he/she will have a scan time of no less than 26 seconds. A covops frigate can't kill anything larger than another frigate, and even then they're more than likely going to die quickly to the person they've probed out.
|
Iyanah
Minmatar Mining Munitions and Mayhem R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 17:26:00 -
[416]
Originally by: Winterblink Edited by: Winterblink on 28/08/2007 19:46:51
*sigh* Ok then, lets answer those questions. To everyone else, pardon my quote-o-rama.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov There are no counters for cloaking ships - A player who is completely inactive, sitting in system indefinitely, can avoid detection from active players hunting or scouting for them.
Where is the counter to this?
A counter to what, someone logged on and not doing anything?
Originally by: Christari Zuborov Where does the balance lay?
He's doing nothing. Therefore there's nothing to balance.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov No other weapon or defensive system in game has no counter, so why do we continue to allow this module to exist in game without a counter?
What do you want, a forcible way to scan and decloak the person? That seems a bit extreme of a counter to a module which does nothing to you in response.
Originally by: Christari Zuborov What purpose does this module serve that can't still be accomplished with an active player?
If he's inactive, he might as well not be logged on since there's that much of an effect on you and your game. Thus he's doing nothing to warrant a response, or a counter.
whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
cloaked ships should be detectable, however, - ships that are meant to cloak should be extremely hard to detect. - The scan results should be inaccurate, you don't just scan a player down and warp to zero on them, you warp in at say 50km or more/less depending on how easy/difficult it is to detect the hostile ship once there...
so what's the point? you end up a long way off someone who you can't see. what's the use?
well this will introcude a sort of submarine hunt, dropping depth charges to pop those afk cloakers.
hold it, what's this "depth charges" thing? well we have them in the form of stealth bomber bombs and smart bombs. you get your prober, he warps to the scan result, then your hunter gang warps in, drops some bombs, orbits with drones out or firing smart bombs, take your pick. the result is, it's reasonably tough to find AFK cloakers, but possible, given time, cloakers who are at their keyboards but in things like a raven, that should never cloak under normal circumstances, have a reasonable chance of escaping, but are still at risk, and really ought to get going. and finally, those folks who are meant to be there, the covops scouting about, at their keyboards or the recon vessels doing recon-y things, well they see you warp in, lol in local and bugger off to another safe spot elsewhere.
everyone's happy. ========================================== Iy
please remember: I AM a sarcastic ******* and nothing i say has ever represented the thoughts or feelings of my corp, alliance, or anyone really. read |
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 17:59:00 -
[417]
Originally by: Iyanah whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
|
ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:17:00 -
[418]
Originally by: sharkyballs
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
And the crowd goes wild!
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:21:00 -
[419]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Iyanah whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
No one has said anything about removing any module. This has always been about making it possible for scan probes to probe out cloaked individuals. Also, the same things you have said can be directly applied to individuals who use cloaks and don't make any attempt to 'watch their 6', or don't have someone with them.
No one should be able to act with impunity in game. You come into someone else's territory, you should be VERY watchful, VERY cautious. Just as if you were a commando in camouflage hiding in the bush, you can't sit there and ignore your surroundings, ignore that patrol you see a mile off heading directly toward you - you have to adjust, to avoid, to evade while remaining hidden.
The current implementation makes you invulnerable. It's like you're playing poker, don't have to bet, but you still get dealt a hand - when 4 aces come up you decide it's time to play.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:44:00 -
[420]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 18:45:17
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Iyanah whilst this is true. the thing is, you CAN'T know someone is inactive. say for example you have a gang of miners in one system, you go in in your manticore, cloak, go AFK. you wait a while, they think "meh, he's afk" and commence mining, you warp in, fire off some cruise missiles, pop goes a hauler or a barge, you warp out and cloak, all in a few seconds, you have absolute impunity. i agree that cloaked ships should be detectable on scanners. BUT WAIT!! yeah, i use cloaks, on ships designed for the role, and thus i can see both sides of the coin.
sorry, that doesn't fly with me. ie it's not a reason. what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
No one has said anything about removing any module. This has always been about making it possible for scan probes to probe out cloaked individuals. Also, the same things you have said can be directly applied to individuals who use cloaks and don't make any attempt to 'watch their 6', or don't have someone with them.
No one should be able to act with impunity in game. You come into someone else's territory, you should be VERY watchful, VERY cautious. Just as if you were a commando in camouflage hiding in the bush, you can't sit there and ignore your surroundings, ignore that patrol you see a mile off heading directly toward you - you have to adjust, to avoid, to evade while remaining hidden.
The current implementation makes you invulnerable. It's like you're playing poker, don't have to bet, but you still get dealt a hand - when 4 aces come up you decide it's time to play.
my point as it's already been made was that cloaking does not equal impunity. but when you make the ability probe a cloak, you make the cloak module useless. you have a cloak so you CAN'T be probed, not so that the prober simply has to use a different probe. hence, leaving the module useless.
if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
|
|
omiNATION
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:44:00 -
[421]
God the things people complain about?
You know what i feel is unbalanced? When people dock at a station, when's that nerf coming? I really hope Ambulation lets you walk into a station and break someone's neck, because the idea that there's no counter to "Dock" is just unbalanced. I'm gonna cancel my account.
Although I have to admit, the idea is interesting. Assuming Eve is modeled after navel warfare, then assume cloak is a submarine ability, you can't detect them, but you could use a sonar module to detect either warped movement or proximity. Lets say every 30 seconds your sonar module "pings" and gets a "subspace anomaly", but all it tells you is say distance, and only when the cloaked ship is moving, or warping, since even normal submarines are more or less undetectable when they aren't moving (per ww2 era subs), maybe even have a maximum cloak time dependent on skill and rigs if people _still_ complain, but if so, cloaking ships should still be able to attack while cloaked, and no one wants to see that... well except covert ops players.
As the whole "one cloaked player shuts down entire system", geez can you be any more cowardly? you should be thankful you can see cloaked players in local and can be invulnerably docked. Not being able to flood the market with cheap tritanium for 6 hours is a decent tradeoff for being a total chicken i'd say.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:41:00 -
[422]
Originally by: sharkyballs my point as it's already been made was that cloaking does not equal impunity.
How so? It allows anyone not currently targeted to remove themselves completely from risk, without removing themselves from the actual game. It allows someone to remove themselves without any considerable loss. That's exactly what impunity means.
Quote: but when you make the ability probe a cloak, you make the cloak module useless.
No. You make a cloak ever so slightly less useful, but far from useless. Without a cloak, you could be probed in approximately 26 seconds. With a cloak, it could take anywhere up to 25 minutes, and that's only if you sit still while they probe for you. Cloaks would still be incredibly useful.
Quote: if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
Sensor damps counter sensor boosters, and sensor boosters counter sensor damps. You make no valid point.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:38:00 -
[423]
Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 20:41:23
Originally by: Elmicker How so? It allows anyone not currently targeted to remove themselves completely from risk, without removing themselves from the actual game. It allows someone to remove themselves without any considerable loss. That's exactly what impunity means.
if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat. we seem to be repeating ourselves. with the exception that my argument is logical, your's is simply paranoid.
Quote: No. You make a cloak ever so slightly less useful, but far from useless. Without a cloak, you could be probed in approximately 26 seconds. With a cloak, it could take anywhere up to 25 minutes, and that's only if you sit still while they probe for you. Cloaks would still be incredibly useful.
useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do? your're delusional (a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact) me thinks.
Quote: if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
Quote: Sensor damps counter sensor boosters, and sensor boosters counter sensor damps. You make no valid point.
i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:30:00 -
[424]
Originally by: sharkyballs Edited by: sharkyballs on 31/08/2007 20:41:23
Originally by: Elmicker How so? It allows anyone not currently targeted to remove themselves completely from risk, without removing themselves from the actual game. It allows someone to remove themselves without any considerable loss. That's exactly what impunity means.
if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat. we seem to be repeating ourselves. with the exception that my argument is logical, your's is simply paranoid.
Quote: No. You make a cloak ever so slightly less useful, but far from useless. Without a cloak, you could be probed in approximately 26 seconds. With a cloak, it could take anywhere up to 25 minutes, and that's only if you sit still while they probe for you. Cloaks would still be incredibly useful.
useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do? your're delusional (a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact) me thinks.
Quote: if anything, the cloak is the counter to the probe. that is balance.
Quote: Sensor damps counter sensor boosters, and sensor boosters counter sensor damps. You make no valid point.
i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
I think it's pretty obvious where you sit in all of this. You're a cloaking ratter, any change for you takes away your invulnerability. You keep stating how your cloak negatively effects your ship, but there's no real negative effects for covops/recons.
At any rate, I think the we've got a great sample of the cloaking ratters opinion - thanks.
|
iiOs
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:35:00 -
[425]
leave cloaking alone, its fine, cant handle it? leave system, if enemy is afk, he wont follow
----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------- BB
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:38:00 -
[426]
Originally by: sharkyballs if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat.
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
Quote: useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do?
You've increased the time it takes to probe you by a factor of 60. It still does the job it was intended to do (hide you from scanner, hinder probing), it just doesn't do it with absolute certainty. Instead, like every other defensive module and mechanic it becomes dependant on the skill of your opposition; exactly as it should be.
Quote: i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
You said probes shouldn't be the counter to cloaks because cloaks are already the counter to probes. I gave you an example to show that this situation is the norm in eve, and that the cloak is in fact the exception.
Quote: oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
Before i go on a tirade at your lack of comprehension (for the third time)... Is English your first language?
|
ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:39:00 -
[427]
Originally by: iiOs leave cloaking alone, its fine, cant handle it? leave system, if enemy is afk, he wont follow
This is hard to understand for some guys.
|
Stradivarious
Minmatar Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:43:00 -
[428]
Originally by: Marux
Originally by: Filipa Gomez If u allow the scan probe of cloakers u might as well remove them from the game, cause such devices will become obsolete! Who will want to cloak in some place when u can be scanned and warped to u! No one will use them!!
Let me lay out a theoretical situation for you, assuming scan probes were in the game. You are cloaked in a system and a hostile warps in and proceeds to probe you out. Now if you are paying attention then you will have no problem staying one step ahead of whoever it is chasing you since he has to first launch the probe, get the results, then warp to your location. At best just warping to you would take about 10-15 seconds; more than enough time to escape, or if you don't like that option then just fly your ship in a straight line, when the prober warps in, he will arrive at your former destination, not your current one. And this is assuming that he actually has decent probe skills and is flying a ship designed for probing (a frigate) So now you have a pesky frigate chasing you, with very little chance to catch you. And for those that don't have probe abilities your cloaking device is still just as effective as it was.
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread to see if anyones shot you down yet, nor do I have the time, but I have to call bull****. Anyone experienced with probes would arrive at your empty spot since you were moving, hit reinitiate on the probe and when he gets your new location, on grid with himself, hit mwd and warp to(which approaches since you are too close). Oopsie, someone just bumped into your covert ops...
Leave cloaks the hell alone unless you remove local. Case closed. The only argument that I have seen *for* nerfing cloaks that holds any water is with the farmers... Trouble is, if you knee jerk reaction nerf that, you screw everyone else, including yourselves over. The game has ALWAYS had a way to hide, it needs to retain this and the game designers should not cater to your inability to escort your own alliance m8's. I have been the lurker in local cloaked, and I have been the alliance member with a lurker in local, I say leave em be.
Sure, bring a knife to a gunfight. |
iiOs
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:44:00 -
[429]
Originally by: ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
Originally by: iiOs leave cloaking alone, its fine, cant handle it? leave system, if enemy is afk, he wont follow
This is hard to understand for some guys.
yes, because its stupid thing to complain about
----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------- BB
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:50:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Stradivarious ...hit reinitiate on the probe....
The idea is that the cloak disrupts your signature, for example with proto cloaks to .5, improved to .25 and covert to .025. That, coupled with the fact you still can't see cloaked people on the scanner means that you cannot just repeat the probe and be sure of an instant result. All the cloaker has to do is warp more than 5AU away, and you'll have to switch to a higher probe, increasing the time taken to re-probe them by 2-5x. You can still hide from a pursuing gang, you just can't hide with 100% of the certainty 100% of the time.
|
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:11:00 -
[431]
Originally by: Stradivarious
Originally by: Marux
Originally by: Filipa Gomez If u allow the scan probe of cloakers u might as well remove them from the game, cause such devices will become obsolete! Who will want to cloak in some place when u can be scanned and warped to u! No one will use them!!
Let me lay out a theoretical situation for you, assuming scan probes were in the game. You are cloaked in a system and a hostile warps in and proceeds to probe you out. Now if you are paying attention then you will have no problem staying one step ahead of whoever it is chasing you since he has to first launch the probe, get the results, then warp to your location. At best just warping to you would take about 10-15 seconds; more than enough time to escape, or if you don't like that option then just fly your ship in a straight line, when the prober warps in, he will arrive at your former destination, not your current one. And this is assuming that he actually has decent probe skills and is flying a ship designed for probing (a frigate) So now you have a pesky frigate chasing you, with very little chance to catch you. And for those that don't have probe abilities your cloaking device is still just as effective as it was.
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread to see if anyones shot you down yet, nor do I have the time, but I have to call bull****. Anyone experienced with probes would arrive at your empty spot since you were moving, hit reinitiate on the probe and when he gets your new location, on grid with himself, hit mwd and warp to(which approaches since you are too close). Oopsie, someone just bumped into your covert ops...
Leave cloaks the hell alone unless you remove local. Case closed. The only argument that I have seen *for* nerfing cloaks that holds any water is with the farmers... Trouble is, if you knee jerk reaction nerf that, you screw everyone else, including yourselves over. The game has ALWAYS had a way to hide, it needs to retain this and the game designers should not cater to your inability to escort your own alliance m8's. I have been the lurker in local cloaked, and I have been the alliance member with a lurker in local, I say leave em be.
If you did nothing during this time, yeah, someone would be bumping your cloak.
The point is that it will take active defense, warping away when needing to as opposed to being 100% invulnerable. If the argument is that someone could be found too quickly, there's options for that including the one that Elmicker and I have said.
All ships have a signal strength that's based upon size. This signal strength has an effect already on how easy it is to find them with scan probes and how far the warp to point is from them on each scan. Cloaks could be changed so that when enabled they'll have a multiplier effect on this signal strength of whatever is deemed fair.
To give an example, in exploration it's possible to run across a site with a strength of .01. A strength of that size has taken myself and a partner doing the same scans as long as 10-15 hours to get a single hit, and that hit brings you within 4 AU. Within 4 AU it's taken as long as 2 hours longer to get a second hit, bringing you sometimes within 2 AU, and sometimes within 1 AU.
So you see there's already a mechanic already in game that could be applied to cloaks of different tech levels to make them more difficult to scan down than a regular non-cloaked ship.
The question is how difficult do you make it, how often should that lucky hit happen, how long is it reasonable to assume "hey I'm in here collecting info on the enemy and I should be relatively safe for x amount of time before I get scanned out."
No one wants cloaks to be useless, including myself as I use it, but I do want fair play to be invoked in a situation where it's absent.
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:13:00 -
[432]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat.
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
Quote: useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do?
You've increased the time it takes to probe you by a factor of 60. It still does the job it was intended to do (hide you from scanner, hinder probing), it just doesn't do it with absolute certainty. Instead, like every other defensive module and mechanic it becomes dependant on the skill of your opposition; exactly as it should be.
Quote: i think you need to think that one through again. did anybody else understand how this has anything to do with the conversation or how it invalidates my point? because it doesn't make sense to me.
You said probes shouldn't be the counter to cloaks because cloaks are already the counter to probes. I gave you an example to show that this situation is the norm in eve, and that the cloak is in fact the exception.
Quote: oh i get it, then we should have a probe damp module to fit along with the cloak so now it takes up 2 slots. i don't think i need to say anything further than that.
Before i go on a tirade at your lack of comprehension (for the third time)... Is English your first language?
lol, my lack of comprehension. yeah. i think the problem you're having is that i actually state logical facts. example: 1+1=2. you've been stating at best wierd theories with little or no logic. example: "elmiker has decided today that gravity doesn't exsist, so everybody has to (instead of float off the earth) fly toward the sun at high velocity and turn into an apple". go back and reread. i think two of you are the only people that have posted that have you're point of view. why? cause it's flawed. you back up you're theories with opinions.
for example on opinion:
Quote:
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
if this was a fact, just about every system in eve would be on lockdown
an example of a "weird theory"
Quote:
You said probes shouldn't be the counter to cloaks because cloaks are already the counter to probes. I gave you an example to show that this situation is the norm in eve, and that the cloak is in fact the exception.
with the "weird theory" there i think you actually proved my point. yes cloaks are the exception because probes can already find a ship without a cloak. you're flawed theory says thier use should be negated, which you further commented on with "but it could take a long time...blah blah", which since isn't proven is at best a theory but sounds more like an opinion. then said something that didn't make any sense. it should have a similar name if it was ment to be a counter? your example, sensor boosters and sensor damps. that's what it sounds like you're saying anyway. which is illogical and frankly a very childish mentality.
please make your points in a clear, concise way and you might be heard better. i can't continue this with you until you learn the basic rules of conversation.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:17:00 -
[433]
Originally by: sharkyballs
with the "weird theory" there i think you actually proved my point. yes cloaks are the exception because probes can already find a ship without a cloak. you're flawed theory says thier use should be negated, which you further commented on with "but it could take a long time...blah blah", which since isn't proven is at best a theory but sounds more like an opinion. then said something that didn't make any sense. it should have a similar name if it was ment to be a counter? your example, sensor boosters and sensor damps. that's what it sounds like you're saying anyway. which is illogical and frankly a very childish mentality.
I give up, seriously, WHAT THE **** ARE YOUR PRATTLING ON ABOUT
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:33:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs
with the "weird theory" there i think you actually proved my point. yes cloaks are the exception because probes can already find a ship without a cloak. you're flawed theory says thier use should be negated, which you further commented on with "but it could take a long time...blah blah", which since isn't proven is at best a theory but sounds more like an opinion. then said something that didn't make any sense. it should have a similar name if it was ment to be a counter? your example, sensor boosters and sensor damps. that's what it sounds like you're saying anyway. which is illogical and frankly a very childish mentality.
I give up, seriously, WHAT THE **** ARE YOUR PRATTLING ON ABOUT
It's obvious that SHARKY exists in the camp of, "I don't care what you do, just so long as it doesn't change my game play .0001%". This person is unreasonable and probably best ignored at this point.
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:36:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov It's obvious that SHARKY exists in the camp of, "I don't care what you do, just so long as it doesn't change my game play .0001%". This person is unreasonable and probably best ignored at this point.
I don't care what camp he's in, i just want to know what that post meant. I honestly can't understand it!
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:53:00 -
[436]
Originally by: sharkyballs i think two of you are the only people that have posted that have you're point of view.
Oh, that's not quite true. I don't agree with every point Elmicker has made, and I haven't arrived at my conclusions the same way, but I agree with his basic ideas. I think a lot of us just get tired of recycling the same old conversations for the 18th time in Cloak Thread #5731.
I love cloaks. They're incredibly fun, and have been terrific for me as a solo player. But even more than cloaks I love the idea that space in EVE is dangerous, and it should become more dangerous for people who are AFK, not paying attention, or just plain dumb, and that should apply as much to the cloaker as his targets. Furthermore, it would take a much harsher counter to cloaks than any I've seen proposed here to make me think they'd suddenly be useless. The very thought is hilarious, and I'd bet isk that most of the people against a cloak nerf would realize it not long after it was implemented.
As far as I'm concerned, Cloaks could be even more fun than they are now. It's like there's this whole potential field of sub warfare that's missing from the game. But maybe that doesn't appeal to everybody.
Quote: why? cause it's flawed. you back up you're theories with opinions.
Whichever side you're on, it all comes down to opinions, sunshine. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:01:00 -
[437]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske
Oh, that's not quite true. I don't agree with every point Elmicker has made, and I haven't arrived at my conclusions the same way, but I agree with his basic ideas. I think a lot of us just get tired of recycling the same old conversations for the 18th time in Cloak Thread #5731.
Yep.
Everyone has already said everything that could be. Some valid points were made on both sides, some concessions, some flat-out disagreements.
Main thing is every has bent as much as they are going to, hence any arguement no longer suits a purpose and its time to move on. CCP will do what they think should be done, all of us have voiced our opinions as to what we think is acceptable in our terms.....
Time to die.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Ozmodan
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:04:00 -
[438]
How can anyone say they are not hurting anyone? Putting a cloaked ship in a system makes that system unusable. A cloak on a ship should not last forever, put a time limit on it.
Some times I wonder if some of you ever bother to even play the game anymore, you instead post nonsense on the boards. Learners permit still current |
Zephyrys
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:05:00 -
[439]
Originally by: Elmicker
Before i go on a tirade at your lack of comprehension (for the third time)... Is English your first language?
Perhaps you should answer that question first.
English is my first language and I can understand him just fine, as apparently can everyone else in this thread thats clearly NOT asking him if he knows how to talk. Hmm 99.9% of the ppl in the thread don't seem to have a problem understanding him. .1%.. i.e.. YOU seem to be unable to comprehend.
As you seem to be the only one having reading comprehension issues.. perhaps YOU should go finish your curious george books and take a nap. -------------- Active Miner improvement Threads = 5 Active Miner improvement Threads with Dev Response = 0
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:10:00 -
[440]
Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 23:12:13 Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 23:11:11
Originally by: Zephyrys I can understand him just fine
Alright, so can you clarify what his last post was meant to say? All i've got out of it so far is the term "wierd theory" when so far i haven't stated any theories, merely anecdotal evidence based off 18 months of nothing but 0.0 and projected effects based off other people's estimations
edit: alright. I've given it another go and i'm still sticking by my point of his poor comprehension. Simply based on his prattle about "similar names". What on earth has that got to do with anything?
|
|
La Nina
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:20:00 -
[441]
You don't belong in 0.0 Elmicker. Get out while you can lest you develop stomach ulcers or worse from worrying about the hidden threats that are all around you just waiting to strike at you in a moment of weakness. 18 months?? You poor thing, you must be a wreck by now
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:24:00 -
[442]
Anti cloakers requests:
Be able to probe cloaked ships Be able to probe non dedicated cloaked ships Make cloaks have a timer Make cloaks use fuel
Dev response: Covops cloaks wont be effected.
Results:
You might be able to probe non dedicated cloaking ships.. such as macro ratters and afk ravens
You wont be able to probe covops/recons.. such as those that sit in your space watching you and gathering intel.
Anti-Cloakers whine
But we want to be able to find ALL ships regardless of anything.
If CCp makes probing non dedicated claoked ships possible.. I can live with that.. so long as it takes longer then a normal probe job.
Removal of local would be best however.
If you whiners insist on nerfing cloaking.. or boosting probing (whichever argument you pick)then when it comes to non dedicated cloakers.. the probe should only return a warp point of 10km at the minamum.
If you could probe covops cloakers.. then the closest warpin should be 20-30km at least.
This makes it possible to find your dreaded afk cloakers and the macro ravens. You won't end up directly on top of them so they would still have a slim chance of decloaking and warping out (since they fly cloaked like a garden slug on a salt flat) CovOps would have plenty of time and oppertunity to either fly off in a different direction or warp away cloaked.
This would effect Stealth Bombers and Combat recons (of the dedicated ships) most as they cannot warp cloaked.
As long as you cannot wtz on the cloaker.. then I could deal with you being able to probe us down.. but the probe time needs to be increased and the distance you can warp in on the cloaker cannot be >5km
This wouldn't hinder ATK cloakers much (except combat recons and stealth bombers whome would have to rely on sublight flight speed to evade the hunter)
It would allow the whiners to find their AFK cloakers but prevent them from getting a wtz kill... it would just take time and there would be chances of them seeig you warp in and being able to escape before getting locked down.
To the whiners.. please explain why this isn't enough for you
To the Cloakers.. please explain why this would still be considered a game breaking nerf.
As a recon/SB cloaker myself.. I can see this as a decent balance. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:29:00 -
[443]
Originally by: ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
Originally by: Elmicker Infinite threat in every system = dead 0.0 overnight.
Unknown is not the same as infinite. Maybe some of you 0.0 carebears would man up and learn to have AT LEAST ONE defensive ship for all your carebear activities.
It doesn't get any simpler than that. He can even rat while you mine or pve, there is no reason you should die in the 15 seconds it takes him to warp to you.
Elmicker. Any response?
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:48:00 -
[444]
Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 23:48:53 Edited by: Elmicker on 31/08/2007 23:48:01
Quote: Elmicker. Any response?
If you insist.
Originally by: ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf Unknown is not the same as infinite.
Unless you plan on losing every ship you every pilot, you must plan for the worst. The worst case with an unquantified and unknown threat is an enemy capable of destroying you. This goes for any situation. Unless of course you plan to fly around in your battleship thinking "LOLOLOL, IM INVINCIBLE BECAUSE I HAVE SOMEONE DEFENDING ME. I CANNOT BE BLOWED UP".
Quote: maybe some of you 0.0 carebears would man up and learn to have AT LEAST ONE defensive ship for all your carebear activities.
Any self-respecting pilgrim pilot could kill half a dozen mining barges before the call for help even went into gang chat. The only effective defense is using an empty system and keeping that system empty through use of a gatecamp and scouts.
Quote: there is no reason you should die in the 15 seconds it takes him to warp to you.
There isn't? Wow, i guess i've been tanking my alt's iteron 5 wrong all these months.
|
Reachok
Amarr Omiracon Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 00:02:00 -
[445]
If they decide to "nerf cloaks" it should go like this:
COVOP ships operate cloaks at 100% cloak efficiency. Force recons at near 100%. Both ships operate cloaks at such high efficiency, no probe could detect them anyway. Next are your bombers. They too operate at a very high efficiency, let's say 80-100% depending on cloak skills. Also too high to detect effectively, but are possible given time and an afk pilot.
Now, all ships using the budget cloak emit way more energy than the T2 or COVOP cloak, based on cloak skills of the pilot and ship size. A moving ship emits higher energy readings than one sitting still. Someone with a lvl 1 cloaking skill in a Raven for instance is operating at 10% efficiency. Whereas a frig using the same cloak might operate at 30% efficiency.
Basically a good scanning pilot should be able to locate a moving cloaked Raven in about 15-20 minutes. Stationary maybe a little longer. This in my opinion would keep pilots on their toes if sitting in a cloaked BS. AFK guys come back to find their clones at a station. I don't think anyone no matter how good should be able to warp right in on a cloaked BS. Although there should be a random chance that they can, but 99% of the time they shouldn't be able to.
Personally, I don't think it's broken, it's a cloak for gosh sakes, but hey if we're gonna nerf this puppy do it so the guys that have trained for COVOPS and Force Recon can continue to operate like they are supposed to and the cloaked afk BS guys get motivated to actually play the game.
In another universe that shares the same conventions (cloaks, tractor beams, warp drives, etc.) cloaks emitted certain types of energies that were detectable if the sensors were set to scan for those specific energy emissions. Okay, just so some two week old guy can't go out and find a cloaked Apoc, a skillset could be developed that ties into the existing exploration skillset. Say specific skills for detecting various race's ships.
Lastly I picture this:
Dude is sitting near a gate in his cloaked BS. He sees gate activation but does not see a ship warp away except for a brief flash. He immediately realizes it's a COVOP ship most likely. On his ship scanner he sees probes going out. Suddenly the gate activates multiple times, and a dozen ships enter the system. Ships begin warping to distances within sight of his ship, but still not so close he has to move just yet. He realizes he can warp off right now or try to see if they locate him. So he begins moving towards the gate at a crawl due to his cloak's speed gimp. Suddenly, an enemy BS warps right in on top of him, decloaking him and locking him while he's unable to fire or lock for 30 seconds due to the cloak locking penalty. The other ships warp in and it's over in less than a minute.
Okay, most pilots wont' be sitting near a gate cloaked. And by near I mean at optimal range for their weapons. He could be sitting at a safe between two gates 120au apart - warping between safes, cloaking. The point is he now has an "edge" to sitting cloaked in a BS. Currently there is none until he decloaks and takes out that AFK hauler.
Long winded, possibly faulty logic involved but if you want it nerfed, it should be done in such a fashion that it adds to the drama of the game. Versus a nerf that allows detection within seconds. I want to know that the cloaked pilot sees a warship warp to within 50 km of his position, knowing that nearby a COVOP is dropping another probe to narrow his position down further. He should be sweating, nervous, scared, maybe even anticipating what's coming. Maybe he even catches a brief glimpse of the COVOP ship as it decloaks to launch another probe nearby. Should any ship be capable of locating cloaked ships? Sure. But let's use the same formula we currently use for exploration. This favors COVOPS and certain T1 frigs that currently get specific bonuses.
I'm finished, thanks for reading my novel if you've made it this far
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 00:08:00 -
[446]
The problem is this will seriously hurt the non warp cloakers such as covops and stealthbombers.
Making moving targets easier to find is bad... finding a stationary target should be easier.
I fyou want a lame rp reason.. umm the energy bleed from a stationary cloak is more easily detectable then from a moving ship as the energy is being used for movement rather then just bleeping off into space where it can be picked up. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 00:09:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Reachok ...if you want it nerfed, it should be done in such a fashion that it adds to the drama of the game.
Exactly. \o/ * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Reachok
Amarr Omiracon Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 01:08:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri The problem is this will seriously hurt the non warp cloakers such as covops and stealthbombers.
Making moving targets easier to find is bad... finding a stationary target should be easier.
I fyou want a lame rp reason.. umm the energy bleed from a stationary cloak is more easily detectable then from a moving ship as the energy is being used for movement rather then just bleeping off into space where it can be picked up.
As stated in my booklet above, COVOPS, Force Recons and Stealth Bombers operate their cloaks at or near 100% efficiency. There is little to no energy bleed off. They can sit cloaked for days and have no concern that someone will find them. A stealth bomber pilot at lvl 4 cloaking is in the same boat as a COVOP pilot, ie. no energy bleed from his cloak. These ships by their very nature are designed for this role. Whereas a BS is not, and will bleed energy while cloaked to a greater or lesser degree based on the pilot's cloaking skill. A BS should never be able to cloak at greater than 50% cloak efficiency, a frig at no more than 80% efficiency. Frigs are smaller and produce less energy than their BS big brothers. Cruisers fall in between of course.
I disagree that a moving non-COVOP ship emits less energy, as while moving the engine thrust energy escapes the cloak field because the ship is not designed to dampen it. While sitting stationary the engine is not producing thrust, and thus no energy from the engines is escaping the cloak field. In that other universe I mention above, the cloaked ships were always harder to detect while motionless. And before someone mentions that we're not in that universe, we have taken for granted that a lot of the nomenclature in this game is taken directly from that other universe.
Anyway, as stated previously I'd like to see it not messed with. One of my favorite things to do while in 0.0 and ratting was to equip my ships with cloaks. That way I could safely go afk for bathroom breaks, wait out an enemy incursion, or whatever was needed. However, I can understand why people want it "fixed". I just want it "fixed" in such a way that it makes sense. And is balanced.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 01:31:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Reachok In that other universe I mention above, the cloaked ships were always harder to detect while motionless. And before someone mentions that we're not in that universe, we have taken for granted that a lot of the nomenclature in this game is taken directly from that other universe.
Very well.. from now on.. Cloaks will be refered to as "Optical Disassociation fields"
------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 13:40:00 -
[450]
Originally by: sharkyballs
...what you just explained is a bunch of dumb miners that dropped their defense. if you tie your hands behind you in a fist fight, sure the guys gonna kill you. that's what you just described. drop your defense, you get leveled. what you just described also happens everyday from people not checking local and getting hit because they zoned out. a bunch of miners being lazy is not a good enough reason to take away the use of a module.
Not checking local is the fault of the miners, and is a symptom of them being lazy, we agree on that. It is not the same as letting down your guard to cloakers. The miners in your situation let their guard down on account of the possibility of AFK cloaking (bad game mechanic in my opinion). If people could NOT AFK when cloaking, the miners would know that there is a cloaker active in game and are responsible to take the appropriate actions.
Saying that miners should be employing escort security at all times anyways is a very poor argument as to how AFK cloakers do not affect gameplay and are no threat. You argue that that AFK cloaker COULD be active, much like a gang of 5 COULD roam into the system at any time, nobody will guard against a gang of 5 while mining unless there is good reason to. What if there are 2 or 3 cloakers? Any miner that doesnt bring 2-3 friends as escorts are lazy and deserve what they get? 3 people that log-in for only 30secs to activate a cloak should not be able to force those miners to split earning 4-ways for 23hours in a day.
Also the real life fight example is bad. If there is an imminent threat, you put your hands up to fight. Nobody would walk around all day with their fights raised in a fighting stance. Currently local is the tool that allows players to "put up their fists" to fight. Remove it and the dynamic of this arguement changes completely.
Again, cloaking to get a drop on an opponent is great tactics. AFK cloaking all day to get the drop on an opponent and disrupting thier productivity is abusing current cloaking mechanics. Remove the ability for people to abuse this mechanic and false intel and cheap cloaking tactics are no longer a threat and will no longer imbalance the game for people actually playing it.
Originally by: sharkyballs if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat. we seem to be repeating ourselves. with the exception that my argument is logical, your's is simply paranoid.
Some people will always try to take advantage of any game design for their advantage or others disadvantage. If someone was able to blow enemies ships up while AFK at no risk to themselves, they would do it if they could. Forcing people spending their time making ISK to do so at a less efficient rate or to be split has a similar net effect and they do it AFK with no risk to themselves. How anyone could argue that this is OK and claim that that argument is based on logic is beyond me.
I doubt that CCP intended cloaking to be a means for people not playing the game to hinder their enemies. That doesn't sound logical to me.
Originally by: sharkyballs
useful how, now i've got several negative effects on my ship just because i've got it fitted only now it doesn't do the job it was intended to do? your're delusional.
If cloaked ships could only be scanned and found if they stayed in the same spot for 25minutes, I GUARANTEE they would still have many uses in the game and still be used. Denying that sounds delusional to me. If your going to claim logic and call others delusional, please keep your statements a little more grounded than the ones I've quoted.
In one quote you claim that taking precautions to your detrement because of cloakers is paranoia. Then in another you claim that a miner who doesn't take precautions and gets blown up for it is lazy and stupid, then you claim logic as the basis for these arguments?
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 13:50:00 -
[451]
Originally by: ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
Originally by: iiOs leave cloaking alone, its fine, cant handle it? leave system, if enemy is afk, he wont follow
This is hard to understand for some guys.
Even AFK the cloaker affects his enemies in a negative way. This point can have NOTHING to do with him uncloaking or blowing up someones ship.
Even though explained in great detail, apparently, this is hard to understand for some guys.
A weak fallible argument is bad enough, but do we really have to hear it spammed over and over? If you trying to overwhelm us with ignorance, it won't work. I live in a culture that created Jerry Springer, seeing and hearing stupidity no longer phases me.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 14:11:00 -
[452]
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: sharkyballs if they do come to attack you, you can kill them and they can't recloak. if you can't target them they are not a threat.
for example on opinion:
Quote:
It has been thoroughly explained that ANY neutral or hostile presence in local channel is a threat. A cloaked threat is still a threat.
if this was a fact, just about every system in eve would be on lockdown
Was this reply serious? When people rat/mine/logistics they do it for the gain of ISK. A cloaker (at best) forces this person to adopt tactics that cost him ISK/hr. You are going to say that the statement that that cloaker is a threat to the others operation is opinion?
I don't necessarily agree with the probe idea, but wow, a cloaked unknown ship in an unknown position as a threat is only an opinion? Heh, well it is my opinion that it is not an opinion, any more so than any other thing most can be reasonably certain of, at least.
How big a threat the cloaker is, that could be argued as partly just opinion.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Ironshirt
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 14:26:00 -
[453]
Haven't read all the posts, but: If you want to stop afk cloaking, why not add a random shutdown timer with an override? When a cloak has been active for a random period of time between 2 limits, a pop-up comes up onscreen with a random code for the player to enter. If the code isn't entered within 1 minute, the cloak shuts down.
Randomness is included to reduce likelyhood of macros working.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 14:45:00 -
[454]
Just make it so ships specialized in cloaking (cov.ops and recons) remain the way they are now.
And the other cloaks destabilize every int(rnd(20)) seconds and make you re-appear for int(rnd(20)) seconds.
- Recruitment open again-
|
Solid Trust
Minmatar Haven Front
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 20:38:00 -
[455]
My 2 cents...
I don't buy the reason for the fix which is so it can have a counter or it makes you 100% safe. Personally, I don't see why it needs a counter and it definitely is not 100% safe as I have been decloaked warping to a gate. The one area where I could see a problem is if cloaking is used purely to grief a person/corp. However, making it so you can probe out cloaks is not the solution. If anything cloaks should not even show the Local channel. Now that would be true covert ops. I would be open for some type of system where you were decloaked if you did not move for 3+ hours. If you are going to take longer then that just log off the freakin game.
|
Magazaki
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 01:03:00 -
[456]
The funny thing is that sometimes the same people that scream that dampeners or nos or speed or whatever else bonus is imbalanced and nerf nerfzors, see a module that gives a person uncounterable ABSOLUTE choice of his fights AND absolute safety at whichever point of space in eve they choose, absolute ability to enter and stay in any point in space and provide intelligence with varied degrees of danger for their enemy, all for the cost of one lowly highslot and double locking time, sometimes not even that (see force recon), and they think it is perfectly fine.
Why simple cloaks should be made probeable: Because a guy in a warship should not become invulnerable and undetectable at a moments notice in space where he doesn't even have a pos to warp to (and even then the pos is subject to attack and eats fuel). Refer above to "absolute safety in any point of space", which is a bull**** concept.
Why recon cloaks should be nerfed(probeable but with difficulty): Becaus a guy that buy his very presense either causes direct or indirect isk damage to another must pay a cost himself for isk, in risk. You cannot force someone to pay isk (divide his earnings for an escort, stop his activities et.c.). Much less without even being on keyboard. Refer above to "Absolute choice of fights", which is bull**** as well, because anyone half-competent will simply not get caught no matter what you try if he is half competent. At least in this case simple probing but with gratly reduced chance to work or/and accuracy suffices, cause everyone actually on-keyboard WILL NOT get caught. Finding someone and locking/killing him are two different concepts.
Why even Covops should be probeable: I think that simply, the gathering of intelligence is one of the most important and risky jobs in a war. In eve, the gathering of intelligence is one of the most important, and THE less risky one. Anyone that things that sitting cloaked at a gate scouting is not damaging you is simply an idiot, sorry. Spies are damaging you, and damaging you a lot. They win fights, and not only the 5vs5 ones, but also the 300vs300 ones. The sheer importance of their task demands SOME sort of risk to themselves. HOWEVER the chance of finding a covops should be slim, slim, so slim as to not even be worth it if you don't have an hour or two to waste. And if he's active, good luck.
But an immobile, afk ship ship should always, always, ALWAYS be killable if it cannot be accountable (someone in a station is accountable, you dock and say "ok he's here", and someone in space is also destroyable, you find him and kill him. An un-cloaked ship shows up on scanner, so it is findable and killable. Someone cloaked is unaccounted for and also cannot be killed - this is lunch for free for his alliance, free intel with no risk)
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 01:10:00 -
[457]
There is nothing wrong with cloaking at all. There is a perception of a problem from the players who have trouble with players that cloak that is all. Cloaking doesnt need a nerf. Please leave cloaking as it is.
www.eve-players.com |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 10:33:00 -
[458]
damn carebears go whine about suiciding ganking more ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
Aaron
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 11:40:00 -
[459]
I do believe the problem is having to waste time and effort, just incase the cloaker attacks, u cant mine/rat alone because you will have to adjust your ship setup,
For those people that dont seem to understand afk cloaking griefing is a problem, i will put it simply.
People cant be bothered to change their ratting or mining setups or play style to make allowances for an afk cloaker that you have absolutly no hope of finding ever, they probably wont even attack.
No one likes it when there is an annoying situation that they can do nothing to solve.
The afk cloaking grief tactic is a psychological attack. very annoying.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 13:01:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Aaron I do believe the problem is having to waste time and effort, just incase the cloaker attacks, u cant mine/rat alone because you will have to adjust your ship setup,
For those people that dont seem to understand afk cloaking griefing is a problem, i will put it simply.
People cant be bothered to change their ratting or mining setups or play style to make allowances for an afk cloaker that you have absolutly no hope of finding ever, they probably wont even attack.
No one likes it when there is an annoying situation that they can do nothing to solve.
The afk cloaking grief tactic is a psychological attack. very annoying.
and it will stay that way CCP will never nerf the specialized cloaks - period
0.0 will never by safe no matter what level of sovereignty you get. ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
|
Elmicker
The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 13:31:00 -
[461]
Originally by: SiJira damn carebears go whine about suiciding ganking more
If you never want to see the nerf happen, why do you keep bumping the only threads that question it?
|
Gorefacer
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 13:42:00 -
[462]
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Aaron I do believe the problem is having to waste time and effort, just incase the cloaker attacks, u cant mine/rat alone because you will have to adjust your ship setup,
For those people that dont seem to understand afk cloaking griefing is a problem, i will put it simply.
People cant be bothered to change their ratting or mining setups or play style to make allowances for an afk cloaker that you have absolutly no hope of finding ever, they probably wont even attack.
No one likes it when there is an annoying situation that they can do nothing to solve.
The afk cloaking grief tactic is a psychological attack. very annoying.
and it will stay that way CCP will never nerf the specialized cloaks - period
0.0 will never by safe no matter what level of sovereignty you get.
Are you actively trying to miss the point?
This has nothing to do with 0.0 saftey, it is the effect cloakers have WHEN AFK. There is very little difference between AFK macro mining and AFK cloaking in a hostile system. One helps you (you: +ISK), the other hurts your enemies (enemies: -ISK) and they both do not require you to even touch your keyboard.
This also has nothing to do with carebears. Less ISK made by allies can hurt your alliance as a whole. I can be indirectly affected even if I never engage in a single "carebear" event or action.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 13:55:00 -
[463]
Quote: the other hurts your enemies (enemies: -ISK)
Only when you don't have a big enough pair to actively face it.
I used to solo rat in 0.0 all the time, and with 2 or 3 neutral/hostile people in local, I'd continue to rat, whether they were ATK battleships or AFK cloakers. If it's a cloaker, even an ATK cloaker, they've not stood up to my anti-rat-fitted BS yet.
I take precautions when there's more than 3 others in local from the same corp. And if you're actually doing a little thing called teamwork, which I'm very reputedly ill at doing, what's an AFK cloaker going to do? If you don't have a guard with any miners, then you're asking for trouble from the NPC rats alone, let alone someone sneaking around system. Anything else? You should have a good enough tank to survive anything a cloaker can throw at you before help arrives, in which case the cloaker is screwed.
Seriously, harden up people,,
Improve Market Competition!
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 07:29:00 -
[464]
Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 04/09/2007 07:30:02
Originally by: Illyria Ambri Edited by: Illyria Ambri on 31/08/2007 23:30:10 Anti cloakers requests:
Be able to probe cloaked ships Be able to probe non dedicated cloaked ships Make cloaks have a timer Make cloaks use fuel
Dev response: Covops cloaks wont be effected.
Results:
You might be able to probe non dedicated cloaking ships.. such as macro ratters and afk ravens
You wont be able to probe covops/recons.. such as those that sit in your space watching you and gathering intel.
Anti-Cloakers whine
But we want to be able to find ALL ships regardless of anything.
If CCp makes probing non dedicated claoked ships possible.. I can live with that.. so long as it takes longer then a normal probe job.
Removal of local would be best however.
If you whiners insist on nerfing cloaking.. or boosting probing (whichever argument you pick)then when it comes to non dedicated cloakers.. the probe should only return a warp point of 10km at the minamum.
If you could probe covops cloakers.. then the closest warpin should be 20-30km at least.
This makes it possible to find your dreaded afk cloakers and the macro ravens. You won't end up directly on top of them so they would still have a slim chance of decloaking and warping out (since they fly cloaked like a garden slug on a salt flat) CovOps would have plenty of time and oppertunity to either fly off in a different direction or warp away cloaked.
This would effect Stealth Bombers and Combat recons (of the dedicated ships) most as they cannot warp cloaked.
As long as you cannot wtz on the cloaker.. then I could deal with you being able to probe us down.. but the probe time needs to be increased and the distance you can warp in on the cloaker cannot be <5km
This wouldn't hinder ATK cloakers much (except combat recons and stealth bombers whome would have to rely on sublight flight speed to evade the hunter)
It would allow the whiners to find their AFK cloakers but prevent them from getting a wtz kill... it would just take time and there would be chances of them seeig you warp in and being able to escape before getting locked down.
To the whiners.. please explain why this isn't enough for you
To the Cloakers.. please explain why this would still be considered a game breaking nerf.
As a recon/SB cloaker myself.. I can see this as a decent balance.
I'd be perfectly happy with this. The whole point to my thread was that it should be possible, and in here your suggestions make it possible.
P.S. Hope everyone had a great labour day weekend
|
Nama Saya
Chickens with an Attitude
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 08:49:00 -
[465]
I'm willing to agree to be able to probe cloaked non-recon/covert ops ships. This should not be easy to do because for people that are in a system without a station or pos, they should have a way to be 'save'.
Recon and covert ops should should never be able to be found!
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe
Albert Einstein |
Usarua
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 11:43:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Nama Saya I'm willing to agree to be able to probe cloaked non-recon/covert ops ships. This should not be easy to do because for people that are in a system without a station or pos, they should have a way to be 'save'.
Recon and covert ops should should never be able to be found!
you know all those negatives for a non covert ops ship to use a cloaker? that right there is the balance. its disgusting that the whiners continually get their way. cloaks we're designed to be powerful pieces that you field only after lots of training and cost. I'd have said that cloak would be the solution to MSes in lowsec before, and that AFK cloakers get whine about so much when clearly AFK cloakers might as well be logged off.
On the other hand, I think a scout ship should be able to detect cloakers ONLY under these circumstances, IF we have to have the whiners get their way: - The module for detecting cloak is extremely expensive and immediately consumes 80% of cpu and powergrid. - it cant see ships directly, but instead can see a "disturbance" in space that exists because of a cloak active. never shows the ship itself.
covert ops ships have been relegated to their bonus to guns position rather than their first and foremost intended position, that of moving undetected to get in range and do what they do best.
say you have 10 cov ops ships, and all 10 of those pilots trained extremely hard to get their ships, and invested the money, then suddenly 1, count, 1 scout can tip off a fleet about the existence of these ships. wtf kind of sense does that make? totally negates the use of cloak.
the pathetically weak arguments against cloak are arguments against the intent and design of the cloak itself. its just stupid.
|
Granmethedon III
High4Life SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 11:50:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Usarua
you know all those negatives for a non covert ops ship to use a cloaker? that right there is the balance. its disgusting that the whiners continually get their way. cloaks we're designed to be powerful pieces that you field only after lots of training and cost. I'd have said that cloak would be the solution to MSes in lowsec before, and that AFK cloakers get whine about so much when clearly AFK cloakers might as well be logged off.
On the other hand, I think a scout ship should be able to detect cloakers ONLY under these circumstances, IF we have to have the whiners get their way: - The module for detecting cloak is extremely expensive and immediately consumes 80% of cpu and powergrid. - it cant see ships directly, but instead can see a "disturbance" in space that exists because of a cloak active. never shows the ship itself.
covert ops ships have been relegated to their bonus to guns position rather than their first and foremost intended position, that of moving undetected to get in range and do what they do best.
say you have 10 cov ops ships, and all 10 of those pilots trained extremely hard to get their ships, and invested the money, then suddenly 1, count, 1 scout can tip off a fleet about the existence of these ships. wtf kind of sense does that make? totally negates the use of cloak.
the pathetically weak arguments against cloak are arguments against the intent and design of the cloak itself. its just stupid.
Nicely said.
|
squall321
Gallente Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 12:17:00 -
[468]
damn whiners allways getting there way...cloaks where fine..just cause you have a red/enemy in system and you dont no what ship ect he is in..you station hug thinking he might be getting ship types or going to tackle one of your ships ratting...
if you nerf the cloak then..its not a cloak...its a big fricken sign saying hey guys im over here!! what is the point in nerfing a module that doesnt essentially need nerfing. it has a balance in the module it self...you can basically not move...speed decreased..cant lock anything after decloak (Talking about non recon/covops ships) just stop whining about things that dont need a smacking from a nerf bat.
its a cloak...deal with it!
-----------
|
Connen
Gallente Imperium Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 13:02:00 -
[469]
Making cloakers easier to find, remove some of the penalties. If not, then remove the mod from the game. Btw, there is no such thing as "easier" either... once people practice and figure out how to find cloaked people it will become a matter of seconds to find a cloaker. Then we will be right where we started... "Cloakers need a boost".. blah blah blah.
|
Delichon
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 13:34:00 -
[470]
Ok people say "an unprobable ship in local is BAD, so fix the cloaks"
But consider the following strategy: 1) One flies in your system. 2) One makes >10 safespots 3) One writes a macro of warping through the safespots in a random faction non-stop (needs a bit of consideration cap-wise, but you get the point). 5) One uses the macro and goes AFK. 6) Try to find him.
No cloaks here, but virtually unprobable as it would take hours and hours of several people probing (and the target ship is constantly moving).
On the other hand imagine you got probable cloak. Then gate campers will have 100% control over incoming ships. Currently you still can rely on your cloak as a solution to running into a gatecamp (you still have to be lucky and not run into a corpse or something that will decloak-WTFBBQ-you) It is not a "Quick save" button, but it give you a decent chance. I once stayed cloaked for a full hour watching a hostile gatecamp from 150 km away, waiting for the moment to warp in to the gate and run. I made it home in one piece that day. With probes gatecampers will have a probe hanging right next to the gate with prober pushing the scan button everytime he hears the warp in sound.
So what do we get from probable cloaks a) you can still grief 0.0 carebears, it would just take a bit more effort and some external software (a break of EULA, but impossible to prove since an ATK player can do just the same for the same purpose) b) run into a gatecamp = clonevat.
So do you still think that nerfing cloaking will aid you at a reasonable cost for all other players?
|
|
34534bobalt3244
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 14:16:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Usarua
Originally by: Nama Saya I'm willing to agree to be able to probe cloaked non-recon/covert ops ships. This should not be easy to do because for people that are in a system without a station or pos, they should have a way to be 'save'.
Recon and covert ops should should never be able to be found!
you know all those negatives for a non covert ops ship to use a cloaker? that right there is the balance. its disgusting that the whiners continually get their way. cloaks we're designed to be powerful pieces that you field only after lots of training and cost. I'd have said that cloak would be the solution to MSes in lowsec before, and that AFK cloakers get whine about so much when clearly AFK cloakers might as well be logged off.
On the other hand, I think a scout ship should be able to detect cloakers ONLY under these circumstances, IF we have to have the whiners get their way: - The module for detecting cloak is extremely expensive and immediately consumes 80% of cpu and powergrid. - it cant see ships directly, but instead can see a "disturbance" in space that exists because of a cloak active. never shows the ship itself.
covert ops ships have been relegated to their bonus to guns position rather than their first and foremost intended position, that of moving undetected to get in range and do what they do best.
say you have 10 cov ops ships, and all 10 of those pilots trained extremely hard to get their ships, and invested the money, then suddenly 1, count, 1 scout can tip off a fleet about the existence of these ships. wtf kind of sense does that make? totally negates the use of cloak.
the pathetically weak arguments against cloak are arguments against the intent and design of the cloak itself. its just stupid.
Well said. The whiners will just take your post out of context now. They don't want to understand.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 14:35:00 -
[472]
when will this topic die?
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
-Albert Einstein
A blog of truth (not mine)
|
Science Lord
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 14:36:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Every item in game has a penalty of some sort, even the ones that don't have obvious drawbacks are penalized in grid or cpu usage. All of these items in addition to having penalties, have counters, so again, where's the counter to this?
Cargo scanners there is no counter to hide my loot so a cloak is my only opption and then I gata be quick or im dead
|
34534bobalt3244
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 15:02:00 -
[474]
Originally by: BoBoZoBo Holy cow
Will someone PLEASE PROVE these players are inactive or AFK!
Even if they were, how in the hell could someone who is not playing be a threat?
I just don't get it.
They aren't. These idiots think that they are entitled to the max amount of isk they can get if they all go out npcing and mining. They dont believe in having even 1 pvp fit battleship to protect a small group of them.
|
343conspiracy43345
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 12:21:00 -
[475]
Everything is fine. Please return to your mining ship.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 14:05:00 -
[476]
Our home system is currently home to 2-3 campers at various times of the day for hours on end...
Do we all whine and mine/rat somewhere else? No we just ignore them. Do we care that there is an enemy stealth bomber lurking around outside the station? Eh not really.. he is cloaked.. he isn't doing anything like harming our miners and ratters... pretty much just sits there.
Stop crying about something thats not broken. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Caldrion Dosto
Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 14:40:00 -
[477]
Got an idea about this thing (problem or no problem) with cloaking.
Remake the ship scanner, so it doesnŠt show witch ship your flying, just show signature radius (like a radar works..), Make cloaking go away (or keep it and just introduce this feature instead), Let "cloaking" (or other name if you keep cloaks as today) devices reduce the ships sig radius.
This will have the effect as "stealth ships and airplanes" have in the real world.. It looks smaller then what it is. (nad it will be harder to hit it, so "stealth bombers" will then be really hard to hit (assuming they get extra bonuses).
You can also introduce a module that increases your sig radius.
It will make fighting more interesting then looking at scanner and see "rifter", "Myrmmidon" etc..
And skip ship names on scanner we can be quite sure that transponders are of at least in 0.0 space and in wars.
|
annoing
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 14:46:00 -
[478]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Where is the counter to this? Where does the balance lay?
Yaaaaaaaaar there be probes, the cloaks were the balance to this. Now ye be wanting a balance for the balance? Scurvy Dog! Tis the plank for you....
Move along please, theres nothing interesting or original in this thread, movve along pleeeease
|
waferzankko
Bears Inc FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 14:46:00 -
[479]
I never afk cloak.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 15:04:00 -
[480]
Pretty much a moot point now. Rev 3.x doesn't contain any rhetoric about changes to probes, so I let this topic die.
Find it interesting that the people who brought it back are the ones who are against probing though... <snicker>
And as for whines, the last two pages look like individuals need to change their feminine products.
|
|
Belial02
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 15:14:00 -
[481]
From my point of view, coverts or recons arent a problem. they do their job and thats just fine.
The only problem is little wussies ratting in cloaked equipped BSes. We shouldnt loose our time trying to trap them, instead they shouldnt even exist. Limit the cloaking modules to ships that are INTENDED to cloak. Simple.
Originally by: Omeega diplomacy is f1, f2, f3, really...
|
Exero's Woman
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 15:26:00 -
[482]
I think it's ok for people who are afk to cloak or people who are just scouts thats fine but their should be a fix for the cloak so it can only be used for that maybe cut the max target range by 80% so that way if you are there to fight or rat you can't just ss cloak as soon as local moves up. Off course this should not effect stealth bombers cov ops and recon ships.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |