open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Destroyer - Cloak Intel
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:49:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Nautsyn Thome on 30/08/2011 09:52:09
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

giving a ship a new role (which it needed anyway) and at the same time introducing a counter to a mechanic which hadnt one before is no nerf imo.


how is adding an effective counter to a mechanic, which does not need one, NOT a nerf??


There is no counter yet, thus it needs one. So perhaps from your point of view, it's a nerf, right. Im not complaining about afk cloakers and the like (i live in a wh), im just saying the destroyer would fit this role perfectly, making the game expierence richer. So from my viewpoint, it's a new feature not a nerf.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:57:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 30/08/2011 10:03:26
I'm on the fence about this one. Carebears need some sort of defence - this really is their only one. At the same time though, afk cloakers are an issue.

Maybe make them only appear on scans after 5 mins inactive (no ship type), after 10 mins show ship type, and after 20 allow them to be scanned down (they then have the option to log without agro, or warp and recloak to reset the timer)... or something like this? Finding a cloaker should be hard, but not impossible if time is spent on it.

Lucien Visteen
Posted - 2011.08.30 10:15:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

giving a ship a new role (which it needed anyway) and at the same time introducing a counter to a mechanic which hadnt one before is no nerf imo.


how is adding an effective counter to a mechanic, which does not need one, NOT a nerf??


I would say its not a nerf because its not a proposed change to said mechanic. A cloaker that is not on grid is still safe, atleast if I'm getting op's idea right. A cloaker on grid is still invisible but he better do something quickly else he will be found. Nothing in op's post is even close to suggest anything about a cloak nerf.

Now, on topic. I would say that giving away ship type info on a cloaked ship is a little too mutch. A cloaked ship, even on grid should be able to have an element of surprise.

And a question to the op. When the destroyer is on the same grid as the cloaked ship, it wont actually see the ship right? just a ticker on the overview and a distance left to it? If it can perfectly point out exactly where on the hud it is, then its too powerful. If its more like I think, that it only shows up on the overview with a distence between them, then this is an idea I can support. Cat and mouse games is fun. A major restriction to speed should be applied thou.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 10:17:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
So from my viewpoint, it's a new feature not a nerf.

its independent from viewpoints, making a feature weaker (which is exactly done if a counter introduced) is the definition of "nerf".

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

There is no counter yet, thus it needs one.

dont think so.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 10:50:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Lucien Visteen
I would say its not a nerf because its not a proposed change to said mechanic. A cloaker that is not on grid is still safe, atleast if I'm getting op's idea right.

This is true.

Quote:
A cloaker on grid is still invisible but he better do something quickly else he will be found. Nothing in op's post is even close to suggest anything about a cloak nerf.

A cloaker on grid is at all times invisible, unless he's decloaked (duh)
In fact, he doesn't need to do anything quickly. While there isn't a Destroyer on grid he is perfectly safe. If there is a destroyer on grid, the cloaker will see him, and dependent on where he is and what he's doing, the cloaker can decide to do different things.

Quote:
Now, on topic. I would say that giving away ship type info on a cloaked ship is a little too mutch. A cloaked ship, even on grid should be able to have an element of surprise.

Yeah, I have been doubtive about this one, in one way it could be a powerful intel tool, but in another it would keep a destroyer from decloaking a pimped T3 ship.

Quote:
And a question to the op. When the destroyer is on the same grid as the cloaked ship, it wont actually see the ship right? just a ticker on the overview and a distance left to it?

Yes, this is exactly the point. I don't want cloakers to be visible. But I do want Destroyers to be able to know they are there. And, with effort and triangulation and a lot of destroyers, be able to close in and eventually pinpoint and decloak him (assuming a stupid cloaker who sits stationary)
Quote:
If it can perfectly point out exactly where on the hud it is, then its too powerful. If its more like I think, that it only shows up on the overview with a distence between them, then this is an idea I can support. Cat and mouse games is fun. A major restriction to speed should be applied thou.


Not sure if I really agree on your speed restriction... I suggested a cloak restriction as not to get cloaked (thus relatively safe) destroyers sneaking up on a cloaked ship without the cloaked ship even knowing he's being sneaked. I'm not sure if a speed restriction is nessicary.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 11:44:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
its independent from viewpoints, making a feature weaker (which is exactly done if a counter introduced) is the definition of "nerf".


yes you are right, when you say it like that. but making a feature weaker isnt necessarily a bad thing gameplaywise. so you could say by nerfing something, you can buff the gameplay by doing it. (i.e. doomsday)
but you are right, so lets skip this topic, its a nerf. Wink

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

There is no counter yet, thus it needs one.

Originally by: Robert Caldera
dont think so.


the only con for a cloaker if the counter would be introduced, would be that he cannot afk while cloaking, without risking anything by doing it. and this is per definition imbalanced, thus needing a nerf.
but as i said before, im not complaining about afk cloakers, they just dont bother me. its about implementing the dd feature, which i simply like.
if the cloaker is active, it would enhance the gameplay for him and the dd pilot.
so the nerf is hitting on passive players, which doesnt sound too unfair to me.


Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 12:35:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/08/2011 12:37:24

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
the only con for a cloaker if the counter would be introduced, would be that he cannot afk while cloaking


this whole afk cloaking thing has been discussed already in a trillion of threads, so no need for another thread. Just read all the others and come back again if you believe something has been missed in those discussions.
The fact is there are plenty of people (incl. me) who think afk cloaking is a legal and required tactic, as carebears who think different - you wont resolve this conflict by opening a new thread, unless you come up with a novel idea or reasoning why its bad as it is which hasnt been covered in previous discussions.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 12:54:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Nautsyn Thome on 30/08/2011 12:59:12
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.

im talking about implementing a feature, which as a byproduct nerfs a mechanic that i dont care of plus has no counter yet, thus it's existence has no legitimate right. if you saying it has, because its the only way to kill carebears, then i simply dont believe you. ;) i will read the other topics, just to find out what your argument can possibly be.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:00:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.




No-one is... Robert, what, in your opinion, is wrong with EVE? Cause you seem intent on keeping it just the way it is now.

(I'm not saying my suggestions are good, or that you should support them, but it starts to look like you're just against for it's own sake)

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:00:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Ingvar Angst on 30/08/2011 13:02:09
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.




Of course you are. By breaking cloaking (any means that allows cloaked vessels to be seen while cloaked breaks it...), you're effectively trying to remove afk cloaking regardless of how "clever" you may think the means to do so is.

The only problem with afk cloakers is that you can see them. Period. The fix is simple, and only needs three things...

1. When cloaked, you cannot be seen on local. Youre' transponder deactivates removing you from the communications grid.
2. Because you're removed from the grid, you cannot use local either. No using it to gather intel while cloaked. You can't passively see who comes and goes into the system. Your intel gathering must be actively done.
3. Give cynos an activation delay of 30 or 60 seconds when you decloak to prevent the "Surprise *********!" hot dropping that so many fear.

It's really this simple.

Lucien Visteen
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:02:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Lucien Visteen on 30/08/2011 13:05:49
Edited by: Lucien Visteen on 30/08/2011 13:04:29
Ok then picture this, and this happened to me.

I was out with a scanning frig and was caught out of position by a red, luckily I had a cloak so I managed to hide before he saw me, thou he did manage to get my general location. Now this guy had an mwd on his ship and started to blast towards me.

Luckily he missed. (scariest 2 seconds of my life Very Happy)

Now imagine this destroyer you have in mind with an mwd on it, or an afterburner for that matter. In my opinion this would be an unfair disadvantage to the cloaker since they can barely move at all with the module active.


In rl too, if you want to find someone, moving fast is not smart. And that should be reflected in the game in some way.

Edit. Gah, suddenly it got full of life here, this one was meant for Gemberslaafje as a response :)
But all can use this to argue all they want.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:03:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/08/2011 13:03:56
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.



Its epic how many people coming to the forums claiming their counter to cloaking is not a nerf at all and they just want to address afk cloaking, of course without removing or nerfing it!

Of course you arent talking about removing afk cloaking, you just suggesting a method of killing people who afk cloak somewhere!

Stop pretending wrong facts already - it IS a nerf and it DOES remove afk cloaking, unless people are willing to loose their cloaked ships while afk.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:05:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Edited by: Ingvar Angst on 30/08/2011 13:02:09
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.




Of course you are. By breaking cloaking (any means that allows cloaked vessels to be seen while cloaked breaks it...), you're effectively trying to remove afk cloaking regardless of how "clever" you may think the means to do so is.

The only problem with afk cloakers is that you can see them. Period. The fix is simple, and only needs three things...

1. When cloaked, you cannot be seen on local. Youre' transponder deactivates removing you from the communications grid.
2. Because you're removed from the grid, you cannot use local either. No using it to gather intel while cloaked. You can't passively see who comes and goes into the system. Your intel gathering must be actively done.
3. Give cynos an activation delay of 30 or 60 seconds when you decloak to prevent the "Surprise *********!" hot dropping that so many fear.

It's really this simple.


read my edit. your proposals are all fine, and nothing of it conflicts with the op's proposal in my opinion.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:08:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Edited by: Ingvar Angst on 30/08/2011 13:02:09
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
you are talking about removing afk cloaking


i am not.




Of course you are. By breaking cloaking (any means that allows cloaked vessels to be seen while cloaked breaks it...), you're effectively trying to remove afk cloaking regardless of how "clever" you may think the means to do so is.


The only thing it may decrease is On-Grid AFK Cloaking. And even then you'll only be discovered if someone is smart enough to take a destroyer (of all things) to whatever you're AFK cloaking off.

Off-Grid AFK Cloaking is still perfectly viable, because there is NO WAY you can be probed out. NO WAI.

Quote:
Speed stuff (Sorry, don't have your post under my copy-paste)


While I see where you are coming from, it also means that the destroyer with MWD will need to know which direction you went in. And even if the exact same situation as you described happens, the only thing the Destroyer will know is that he has missed whatever he was trying to decloak... However, I can imagine this thing not working on a Destroyer with an active MWD or something.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:11:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/08/2011 13:15:01
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

im talking about implementing a feature, which as a byproduct nerfs a mechanic that i dont care of plus has no counter yet, thus it's existence has no legitimate right.

has been already discussed million of times. CCP decides what has a right or not. On top of that, many peeps out there incl. me think this mechanic HAS all legitimate rights to exist. Space is free for all, so why shouldn't I be able to stay in whatever chunk of space I decide to be in - without some tard coming around and claiming that space is his and he should be able to find and blob me out there?


Originally by: Gemberslaafje

The only thing it may decrease is On-Grid AFK Cloaking. And even then you'll only be discovered if someone is smart enough to take a destroyer (of all things) to whatever you're AFK cloaking off.

which means every single carebear out there will create an alt and park it in his sanctum in order to close the last remaining security gap in zero space, which isnt alredy covered by local or directional scanner.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:14:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Its epic how many people coming to the forums claiming their counter to cloaking is not a nerf at all and they just want to address afk cloaking, of course without removing or nerfing it!

Of course you arent talking about removing afk cloaking, you just suggesting a method of killing people who afk cloak somewhere!

Stop pretending wrong facts already - it IS a nerf and it DOES remove afk cloaking, unless people are willing to loose their cloaked ships while afk.


wow, calm down.

Just to break it down once more:
I want a feature, which the op described. I want dd's able to search for cloaked ships, because the idea is cool, and because of gameplay reasons (the counter). If that means afk cloakers get nerfed, i dont care. But only because i dont care, doesnt mean that this is some kind of stealth attpemt to nerf them. It simply means i dont care about them. If the counter would be introduced and afk cloakers have to risk loosing their ships, it would be absolutly fine for me, and in my opinion absolutely balanced.

If you say no it isnt balanced, thats fine with me too. You just dont make any arguments, thus i have some trouble to understand you.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:15:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera

which means every single carebear out there will create an alt and park it in his sanctum in order to close the last remaining gap of insecurity in zero space, which isnt alredy covered by local or directional scanner.



Good luck keeping an uncloaked destroyer alive in a sanctum.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:17:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
I want dd's able to search for cloaked ships, because the idea is cool, and because of gameplay reasons (the counter). If that means afk cloakers get nerfed, i dont care.

because bringing game change suggestions while igroring its effects is a totally fine approach and should be accepted by anyone, just because the originator didnt care.

Gembercyno
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:19:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
...while igroring its effects...


Now you're just trolling. If you don't think this is a good idea, fine, your opinion. But don't tell me I'm not thinking about as much scenarios as I can phantom.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:23:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Its epic how many people coming to the forums claiming their counter to cloaking is not a nerf at all and they just want to address afk cloaking, of course without removing or nerfing it!

Of course you arent talking about removing afk cloaking, you just suggesting a method of killing people who afk cloak somewhere!

Stop pretending wrong facts already - it IS a nerf and it DOES remove afk cloaking, unless people are willing to loose their cloaked ships while afk.


wow, calm down.

Just to break it down once more:
I want a feature, which the op described. I want dd's able to search for cloaked ships, because the idea is cool, and because of gameplay reasons (the counter). If that means afk cloakers get nerfed, i dont care. But only because i dont care, doesnt mean that this is some kind of stealth attpemt to nerf them. It simply means i dont care about them. If the counter would be introduced and afk cloakers have to risk loosing their ships, it would be absolutly fine for me, and in my opinion absolutely balanced.

If you say no it isnt balanced, thats fine with me too. You just dont make any arguments, thus i have some trouble to understand you.


You want to give destroyers this ability... in echange for what? There needs to be a counter of sorts, a balancing act. For example... remove most of the movement pentalies from being cloaked. Allow MWDs to operate while cloaked. Something to balance it. Instead, you want to simply nerf one thing tha tdoesn't need nerfing and get all the benefits yourself. It's as bad as those faux-pirates wanting to remove warp-to-zero so their gate camps will be more effective catching unarmed ships.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:23:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Gemberslaafje

Good luck keeping an uncloaked destroyer alive in a sanctum.

there are always ways and means of doing something, you just need to make something theoretically possible, everyone will use it some day for more security. If we dont need something in zero space at all, its more security.

Originally by: Gembercyno
Originally by: Robert Caldera
...while igroring its effects...


Now you're just trolling. If you don't think this is a good idea, fine, your opinion. But don't tell me I'm not thinking about as much scenarios as I can phantom.

1) that was related to a different person as you can see quoted text
2) he clearly stated he doesnt care about effects

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:30:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Ingvar Angst

You want to give destroyers this ability... in echange for what? There needs to be a counter of sorts, a balancing act. For example... remove most of the movement pentalies from being cloaked. Allow MWDs to operate while cloaked. Something to balance it. Instead, you want to simply nerf one thing tha tdoesn't need nerfing and get all the benefits yourself. It's as bad as those faux-pirates wanting to remove warp-to-zero so their gate camps will be more effective catching unarmed ships.


Wait a min...cloakers have no counter. If you are cloaked on a safe, nothing can touch you. Now the op proposes a counter for that. Whats wrong with it? The cloaker can see the dd on dscan, so he knows going afk is a risk. The cloaker can see the dd on grid, so he maneuvers accordingly before he gets uncloaked, warps off if necessary. Perfect balance, am i missing something?

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:34:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/08/2011 13:34:42

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Wait a min...cloakers have no counter. If you are cloaked on a safe, nothing can touch you. Now the op proposes a counter for that. Whats wrong with it?

1) crippling a feature which works as designed.
2) too much security in zero space

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Perfect balance, am i missing something?

yes. You arent supposed to find cloaked ships. By game rules.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:34:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
I want dd's able to search for cloaked ships, because the idea is cool, and because of gameplay reasons (the counter). If that means afk cloakers get nerfed, i dont care.

because bringing game change suggestions while igroring its effects is a totally fine approach and should be accepted by anyone, just because the originator didnt care.


Dont push me into something i didnt said. You know that by saying i dont care about them, doesnt mean im ignoring the effects. It's ALL about the effects. I just dont use my arguments as a shield to protect this mechanic like you do.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:37:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
It's ALL about the effects. I just dont use my arguments as a shield to protect this mechanic like you do.

You are shielding your nerf intentions behind something different. Prove otherwise.

Lucien Visteen
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:37:00 - [56]
 

A nerf is only a nerf if it is directly applied to the object in question, this thread is not it.

If you want to talk about cloak nerfing take it somewhere else, or bring something pertaining to this subject instead.

This is going very offtopic, but this is a nerf: The doomsday weapon was changed from an area effect to a single target effect.

Buffing something is a buff to that thing not a nerf to something else.

Introducing something is not a nerf to something else. It might be something to battle it, but its not a nerf.

Adding something to an excisting thing to make it do something else or do the same thing with limitations is a nerf.

I can also give you something you can use for arguing against op's idea: I don't like this idea because with it I can no longer gate camp for unsuspecting prey.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:42:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera

1) crippling a feature which works as designed.
2) too much security in zero space

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
Perfect balance, am i missing something?

yes. You arent supposed to find cloaked ships. By game rules.


1) cripling a mechanic which bases on the feature which is called cloaking
2) well i believe this is the only valid point you have, but i think you just overrate the necessarity of afk cloaking to make 0.0 unsecure.

Your last sentence is nonsense. I decloak ships on a regular basis, which try to escape from bubbles. It IS possible, per game rules. And just because you dont want to loose your beloved afk cloaking, doesnt mean it is carved in stone by ccp never to touch this.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:43:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/08/2011 13:45:06
Originally by: Lucien Visteen
A nerf is only a nerf if it is directly applied to the object in question

no. Nerf is a game change which results in weakening something.

Originally by: Lucien Visteen

This is going very offtopic, but this is a nerf: The doomsday weapon was changed from an area effect to a single target effect.

but it was a boost for subcapital blobs in the same time, wasnt it? One mass destruction weapon removed from the game, leaving only a much smaller one ingame (bombs).

Originally by: Lucien Visteen
Buffing something is a buff to that thing not a nerf to something else.

A buff is always a nerf for something. Always. Depends on the perspective.

Originally by: Lucien Visteen
Introducing something is not a nerf to something else. It might be something to battle it, but its not a nerf.

It is. Obviously.


Originally by: Lucien Visteen
I can also give you something you can use for arguing against op's idea: I don't like this idea because with it I can no longer gate camp for unsuspecting prey.

whats wrong with that gate camps? Dont tell me you simply dont like this style of play....

Originally by: Nautsyn Thome

Your last sentence is nonsense. I decloak ships on a regular basis, which try to escape from bubbles. It IS possible, per game rules. And just because you dont want to loose your beloved afk cloaking, doesnt mean it is carved in stone by ccp never to touch this.

you know what I mean, otherwise you would have never started this thread since there is no change required, right? Its already possible to find cloakers.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:48:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera

you know what I mean, otherwise you would have never started this thread since there is no change required, right? Its already possible to find cloakers.



Just for the record: I started this thread. She did not, and no, she's not my alt.

Nautsyn Thome
Minmatar
Shark Investments
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:48:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
It's ALL about the effects. I just dont use my arguments as a shield to protect this mechanic like you do.

You are shielding your nerf intentions behind something different. Prove otherwise.


I want the decloak FEATURE on dd's. I dont want to NERF afk-cloakers, even when it would be the consequence.

A better proof you wont get from me, because clearly all you do is to oppose me with it.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only