open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Cloaking device - should it be detectable by probes?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 11:51:00 - [1]
 

Hello all,

Before I start, I be laughin at all you haters so go ahead and be trollin your socks off. If it specializes in black-ops, covert-ops or reconnaissance in general, I fly it.

So here we go...From what I understand at present, cloaking devices when tied into game mechanics operate in such a manner that once activated, said ship with the cloaking device activated is somewhat, "removed" from the game(server) as per say, however, reletively still present in the current. Therefore, making it impossible to locate any vessel using a cloaking device.

My suggestion is that there should be a fine line between operational covert-op cloaking devices and regular "prototype" devices among their tech II verients. Where as, ships and pilots whom operate covert-op cloaking devices are specialized and skilled towards using said technology. Where as, the regular prototype cloaking device and tech II verients only require a high slot, standard electronics IV and cloaking level I.

By definition of "fine line", I'm suggesting that the regular prototype cloaking devices and the tech II verients should be detectable to probe scans. But covert ships, remain covert regardless.(i.e. covert-op cloaking devices should remain undetectable by probe scans)

How would you go about this venture without conflicting current game mechanics? Well I can't imagine it impossible to replace a ships signature while uncloaked to a special energy signal only emitted by prototype cloaking devices and their tech II verients while cloaked. The difference in the two is that while one module is only a prototype and emits a larger energy signature, the tech II verient is only available to the more "skilled" pilot and emits a much smaller energy signature, therefore, harder to find. And by "more skilled pilot" I'm not suggesting current prerequisites should be altered, but simply that said module requires an extra level or two higher than what it takes to use the prototype.

And before anyone complains that this will create lag that you don't want, it wont. It would query the exact same way as it would if the ship was uncloaked. Only this signature can be detected by pilots who've skilled up for the probe that specializes in detecting these signatures. The prerequisites for using these advanced probes should at the very least include Astrometrics level V.

Now, either you can go about this by saying the probe detects the energy created by the ships engines or you could say the "Sniffer" probes carefully lock onto the intermittent frequency generated by the confliction of the ships engines and energy created around the ship. Personally, I'd rather the latter.

Thank you to those who took the time out to read this idea and to those who contributed intelligent responses rather than "oh noes, moar skills!?!?!one!1!?" or "I'll cancel my 88 accounts if you nerf this" - You lads & ladies can grab a spoon, and form an orderly line.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.02.24 11:54:00 - [2]
 

cloaking is fine. no need to nerf it.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:00:00 - [3]
 

no, it should not

Lyra Garris
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:10:00 - [4]
 

Tentatively agreeing with Fearless Leader. Just because you can probe a cloaked person down doesn't mean you can actually find them - In the vastness of space, flying within 2km of a target you can't see is difficult even if you have a good idea of where it is. This idea would help mitigate the invulnerability aspect of a cloaking device without completely removing it. It also makes logical sense - Something the size of a Raven or Apocalypse would be extraordinarily difficult to cloak without entire systems dedicated to it and a great deal of specialized training. As of right now, with Cloaking I you can effectively hide a Titan, which is the size of a space station or larger, from all scanners, probes, and visual detection with a module you could put on a Tech 1 frigate. Then I could go to lunch, and if my safespot's even relatively decent, a 300-man fleet won't find me before I finish.

I don't particularly mind the current cloaking mechanic too much except when it's abused, but I don't think it should be quite as effective as it is either.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:19:00 - [5]
 

well if there would be any abuse of cloaking. but if there is no abuse of cloaking, what do you want to fix?

ships fitting an prototype/improved cloak gimp their capabilities severely enough for a certain degree of safety in hostile space. how is that abuse?

unless you count "we cant gank everyone in our space because they cloak" as abuse. also people in your space watching you is not abuse. they gather intel or put some nice psychological warfare on your corp/alliance.

for me cloaks and their penalties sound fairly balanced.

Xtover
Suicide Kings
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:26:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
well if there would be any abuse of cloaking. but if there is no abuse of cloaking, what do you want to fix?

ships fitting an prototype/improved cloak gimp their capabilities severely enough for a certain degree of safety in hostile space. how is that abuse?

unless you count "we cant gank everyone in our space because they cloak" as abuse. also people in your space watching you is not abuse. they gather intel or put some nice psychological warfare on your corp/alliance.

for me cloaks and their penalties sound fairly balanced.


who is your main?

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:43:00 - [7]
 

What's the point of hiding if you can be found? You will destroy a whole line of gameplay with a half-assed change.

Vespoi Filar
Posted - 2010.02.24 12:59:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: XOdysseyX
GIGANTIC WALL OF TEXT that begins with the assertion that OP is Covert Ops master and so this idea should be taken seriously.Rolling Eyes


Why don't you that the other 250,000 dumb bunnies who post a Probe down cloaked ships thread just SHUT UP!Twisted Evil

Working as intended. Doesn't need to change. Perfect as is... kthxbai!

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:07:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
cloaking is fine. no need to nerf it.


Do you really consider making prototype cloaking devices and their tech II verients detectable by probes, a nerf? There's nothing stopping any accomplished scout or recce pilot from keeping on the move, or aligned with a gate, planet or structure within space. If anything it would encourage new pilots looking to get into this line of work to be a little bit more professional about their role. Wouldn't you agree? I'd happy slap any of my pilots who was watching a gate for me if they weren't constantly on the move, keeping an eye on local, observing the gate and running continuous scans.

And I'd like to state that I never implied that cloaking mechanics was "broken" or required some form of fix. I agree with you that there's a fine balance due to the penalty recieved while using a non covert-op cloaking device on ships. However, as stated there should be a fine line between both. Why should anyone have a goal of flying a covert-op ship? It's just as affective to have your eyes on the gate in a cloaked frig, or doing reconnaissance of stations and play owned structures.

As for psychological warfare. What psychological warfare? If some gimp wants to cloak up his frig, cruiser etc...and sit in space at a safe spot thinking he has you camped, then let him.

Originally by: Grarr Dexx
What's the point of hiding if you can be found? You will destroy a whole line of gameplay with a half-assed change.


What style of gameplay would you be destroying? if you don't mind me asking. Only an incompetent cloak user would sit in the one spot long enough to be probed down. If you do, you deserve to be found.

Originally by: Vespoi Filar
Originally by: XOdysseyX
GIGANTIC WALL OF TEXT that begins with the assertion that OP is Covert Ops master and so this idea should be taken seriously.Rolling Eyes


Why don't you that the other 250,000 dumb bunnies who post a Probe down cloaked ships thread just SHUT UP!Twisted Evil

Working as intended. Doesn't need to change. Perfect as is... kthxbai!


Tiny wall of; If my tail wasn't between my legs I'd be posting on my main. Oh, and...no u.

Scouteye
Locasta Tactical
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:46:00 - [10]
 

Did you ever consider that Cloaks are the counter to probes....... Very Happy

Also, as the Black Ops use a T2 improved cloak, not a covert ops one, would this be detectable in your idea?

0racle
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:18:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: 0racle on 24/02/2010 14:19:46
Originally by: darius mclever
cloaking is fine. no need to nerf it.

TL;DR
Originally by: Robert Caldera
no, it should not

What did you read the WHOLE thread name?
Originally by: Vespoi Filar
Originally by: XOdysseyX
GIGANTIC WALL OF TEXT that begins with the assertion that OP is Covert Ops master and so this idea should be taken seriously.Rolling Eyes


Why don't you that the other 250,000 dumb bunnies who post a Probe down cloaked ships thread just SHUT UP!Twisted Evil

Working as intended. Doesn't need to change. Perfect as is... kthxbai!


So, I heard you went to grammar school.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:38:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: 0racle
So, I heard you went to grammar school.


so we are back to "i have no more arguments to bring up, so i attack your spelling". very nice.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:46:00 - [13]
 

No.

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:48:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Scouteye
Did you ever consider that Cloaks are the counter to probes....... Very Happy

Also, as the Black Ops use a T2 improved cloak, not a covert ops one, would this be detectable in your idea?


Yes, I've always considered that. But EVE is a wonderful place for it's counter, counter measures Wink

In response to your question regarding Black-ops battleships, yes. They would be detectable by the "Sniffer" probes. However, as I previously stated, any pilot using a cloak and sitting in the one spot is incompetent to be honest and they deserve to be probed down and destroyed.

The Black-ops battleships have a far greater speed while cloaked and can easily avoid being decloaked. Not to mention relocation can certainly prove to be a pain to pilots trying to probe down the black-op. Personally, I believe the black-op should be equipped with a covert-op cloaking device. It's only advantage at the moment is the covert cyno jump bridge capabilities which serve great towards covert ambushes or specific assassinations. Yay for expensive BS! Very Happy

Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: 0racle
So, I heard you went to grammar school.


so we are back to "i have no more arguments to bring up, so i attack your spelling". very nice.


Back to? I presented an answer to you and I'm still waiting for your reply. Please refrain from going off topic and state some valid points if you have any. Same applies to you Oracle.

Sarajo
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:06:00 - [15]
 

*snip* Please stick to the topic. Shadow.


also, cloaking is fine

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:20:00 - [16]
 

Sarajo, of Black Thorne Alliance. Do you care to explain why you think cloaking is fine?

Abrazzar
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:30:00 - [17]
 

I'd propose a compromise: On big ships with non-covops cloaks, you will get a hit but no warpable result. So you will be able to identify a titan in system but not its (exact)whereabouts.

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:51:00 - [18]
 

How about this..

Only Ships that are designed to use Cloaking Devices can use them without being probed.

All other ships that fit one would be probable ( as per your "I Hate Clokers And Want Them All To Die " Proposal )

De Guantanamo
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:55:00 - [19]
 

show me on the doll where the afk cloaker touched you

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 16:19:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Abrazzar
I'd propose a compromise: On big ships with non-covops cloaks, you will get a hit but no warpable result. So you will be able to identify a titan in system but not its (exact)whereabouts.


I'm not trying to be smart here, but...they already have local for that. Though I appreciate the input. Smile

Originally by: Meeko Atari
How about this..

Only Ships that are designed to use Cloaking Devices can use them without being probed.

All other ships that fit one would be probable ( as per your "I Hate Clokers And Want Them All To Die " Proposal )


I'm lost for words? I think you should read the thread again. Very Happy

Originally by: De Guantanamo
show me on the doll where the afk cloaker touched you


Bend over and I'll show you? lol.

Originally by: XOdysseyX
As for psychological warfare. What psychological warfare? If some gimp wants to cloak up his frig, cruiser etc...and sit in space at a safe spot thinking he has you camped, then let him.


My opinion of afk cloakers hasn't changed. Wink

Abrazzar
Posted - 2010.02.24 16:22:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: XOdysseyX
Originally by: Abrazzar
I'd propose a compromise: On big ships with non-covops cloaks, you will get a hit but no warpable result. So you will be able to identify a titan in system but not its (exact)whereabouts.


I'm not trying to be smart here, but...they already have local for that. Though I appreciate the input. Smile

Local does not identify the ship type and neither the approximate location of the cloaked ship.

XOdysseyX
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Posted - 2010.02.24 16:28:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: XOdysseyX on 24/02/2010 16:30:02
I think a Titan is probably a bad example in this case? As you'd normally know of a Titan pilot, local says enough sometimes. But in the case of say, a BS or even a cruiser situated at a safe spot. You mean it shows his position but doesn't give a warp-in point? that would sound interesting.

I misunderstood your post as the scan result just showing the presence of said ship, but no location or warp-in. My bad.

Edit; by presence I mean, like a 360 directional scan result. But if it showed a general location, say within 20km of his location that would certainly be interesting.

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:30:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari
How about this..

Only Ships that are designed to use Cloaking Devices can use them without being probed.

All other ships that fit one would be probable ( as per your "I Hate Clokers And Want Them All To Die " Proposal )


I'm lost for words? I think you should read the thread again. Very Happy




Im going to stand over here ----> next to the hookers and punch Embarassed

jenistra krula
Posted - 2010.02.27 22:21:00 - [24]
 

i agree in the fact that it should be possible to find a cloaked ship , BUT , you should need to be the mutts nuts to be able to do it and even the a cov-ops cloak should be as good as imposible to find it , it could be based on the sig rad of the indevidual ship using it small ships are harder to find a large ship easier , then the more advance the cloaking device the greater the reduction.

Krennel Darius
Caldari
EON Solutions
The Laughing Men
Posted - 2010.02.27 22:51:00 - [25]
 

No.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.02.27 23:58:00 - [26]
 

Before I start, I be laughin at all you whiners.

Cloaking is fine.

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.28 03:41:00 - [27]
 

How many more times are we going to have to explain it to people that ANY mod that detects a cloak renders cloaks totally useless. If you can detect them, they may as well be removed from the game completely.

Sobon
Caldari
Phantom Squad
Posted - 2010.02.28 06:23:00 - [28]
 

So the development of sonar totally removed the submarine from warfare? It's unreasonable to have submarine warfare with only one component of the system, a slow reacting system (Such as probes) would keep cloaks extremely useful. They could still run camps, they still would have far more control in when, where, and how a fight happens, they would still be perfectly viable scouts and warp-in points. As it stands a cloaked ship is for all intents and purposes perfectly invulnerable.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.02.28 06:46:00 - [29]
 

Cloaking should allow a ship to be impervious to scans/probes for the duration .. question is if the duration should be infinite as it is now.

Shrouding a several hundred or thousand meter ship with 'invisibility' surely must drain tremendous amounts of power, especially if ship was not designed for it (ie. non-covops);

Capacitor drain of 5%/10minutes for normal cloaks, half that for Coverts gives a good 3 and 6 hours respectively before auto-decloak.
Make it a percentage of the base cap and a person can use batteries to extend it or recharge to shorten 'downtimes' (fitting for a specific purpose - the HERESY!).

If a person needs to AFK for longer than that he should log-out and go see a doctor because that long of a toilet break is just not natural.
Six plus hours should be more than enough time for whatever nefarious schemes a covops user may be hatching.

Tweak numbers as needed.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.02.28 07:57:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 28/02/2010 07:58:14
Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, it is fine the way it is.

Extra long answer: No, it is fine the way it is, they just need to put local chat to delayed mode.


Pages: [1] 2

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