open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Stealth limits
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.17 15:29:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Doc Iridium on 17/04/2008 15:30:12
No, I'm not asking for all of these things to be implemented, I'm offering ideas.


1) Remove auto-operation from stealth modules. They must always be manually operated. Give them a longer timer - say 10 minutes, and give them overlap time so you don't have to perfectly time your button pressing.

2) Make activating stealth cost a bit of fuel.

3) Make a POS mountable tracking array that can, over a period of an hour or so, localize a stealthed ship, and disable it's stealth, or gang warp small ships directly on top of it. If the ship leaves system, the timer is reset. Perhaps limit it to Sov 3 or 4 systems.

4) Force a logoff after 30 minutes of inactivity. If this is implemented without other modifications, then allow stealthed ships to stay stealthed when in the logoff process.

Why do I think one or more of these ideas is a good thing? Players should not be able to simply log in and leave themselves in stealth in a system. If you are going to play, play. If you aren't - log off. The perfect safety of deep space with a stealthed ship is also completely counter to logic.

Stealthy conduct throughout history has always been hand-in-hand with the chance of getting caught. No method of stealth is perfect. Any technology invented to make something less detectable can be countered by other methods. Star occlusion detection, cosmic ray bending analysis, graviton deflection measurement. Lots of sci-fi technogabble could explain how to detect stealthed ships.

If you are stealthing in a hostile/defended system, you should be _nervous_

If you are stealthing in a hostile/defended system, you should be in _danger_

Tradin Jack
Posted - 2008.04.21 03:32:00 - [2]
 

Bump. Would like to see CCP response to this.

Seems silly that players can have such a severe impact on the game when they aren't playing. Are there plans to address this soon?

Acidictadpole
Royal Order of Security Specialists
Posted - 2008.04.21 04:18:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Acidictadpole on 21/04/2008 04:28:58
Quote:

1) Remove auto-operation from stealth modules. They must always be manually operated. Give them a longer timer - say 10 minutes, and give them overlap time so you don't have to perfectly time your button pressing.



Best idea.. Prevents AFK cloaking. Which is the big problem. Make the time long, like 15-20 minutes, and have it warn you or something.

Others don't prevent AFK cloaking, rather preventing cloaking altogether.. Fuel is silly because it isn't something that would require fuel.. cap maybe.


Pos mountable stuff means that watching a pos would become a timing trick of warping out every 59 minutes and coming back in right away.
Logging off after 30 minutes of inactivity seems ok, but that wouldn't just apply to cloakers. I think it would be good to relieve the stress off the servers once and a while.

Xavia Cameron
Caldari
Capital Core Collectives
Posted - 2008.04.21 05:40:00 - [4]
 

I quite like what AFK cloakers do. Personally I believe it is a great part of the game, all AFK cloakers do is open up room for force recons or stealth bombers to run rampant in a system.

And yes, I have been on the receiving end of AFK cloakers, as well as I am a cov ops/recon pilot. Removing AFK cloaks would remove the doubt that gets recons or SB's kills. (It also makes local an even better intel tool, but thats a discussion for another day, in a perfect world a cloaker wouldn't show up in local. Period.)

Red Harvest
Posted - 2008.04.21 06:18:00 - [5]
 

I like all of the ideas and would like to add:

5) t2 probes with high skill requirements (astrometrics 5, astrometric triangulation 5, astrometric pinpointing 5, etc)

6) cloak disruption field, bs/capital/pos versions with very different ranges,
pos version auto-decloaks any cloaked ship on the same grid

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 06:36:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Xavia Cameron
I quite like what AFK cloakers do. Personally I believe it is a great part of the game, all AFK cloakers do is open up room for force recons or stealth bombers to run rampant in a system.

And yes, I have been on the receiving end of AFK cloakers, as well as I am a cov ops/recon pilot. Removing AFK cloaks would remove the doubt that gets recons or SB's kills. (It also makes local an even better intel tool, but thats a discussion for another day, in a perfect world a cloaker wouldn't show up in local. Period.)


First - I'm a cov ops 5 skilled pilot myself - I'm not arguing to take away something I can't use myself.

A very large amount of the people in EVE like it because of the pvp. Where's the pvp in sitting AFK 22 hours per day in cloak? It's not there.

If a player wants to play the game, let them play. If they want to sit around with no interest in acting on their own, then they need to go play the Sims or something. Maybe that is what they are doing?

Sorry for the smack there, but as I said above, the risk-less coast-and-cloak option should not exist. Period. If you want to pvp, then pvp. Being able to stay cloaked for a few minutes afk is fine - everyone needs a bio break now and then. Being able to sit afk cloaked forever with very nearly no risk whatsoever is game-breaking. It makes the lowest skill cloaker just as effective in area denial as a 100 million skillpoint highly experienced small ship pvp pilot actively hunting.

There should be ways to detect and/or disable cloaking. Not necessarily easy ways, but ways to make afk-cloak-and-coast a certain death if you try it for more than a little while in a PC alliance's sovereign systems.

Perfect defenses in games are always broken. Cloak and coast is currently a perfect defense, therefore it is broken. CCP - please fix what has now been broken for years.

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 07:13:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 07:15:00
I would be in favor of implementing a field generator that would decloak and prevent cloaking within a specific range, like 10 - 20km.

When a group of cloaking ships engage someone in hostile/defended system they are nervous and in danger, to what degree depends on the person they are attacking.

The current system is fairly balanced. Bait and gate camps are your best weapon against gangs of cloakers. A system in which it makes it easy to combat cloaking ships that are not actively engaging someone would make recons and blackops battleships worthless. The point of recons/blackops is to engage targets of opportunity. Neutering their ability to select targets at their leisure is game breaking for their class of ships.

Most of the suggested changes would cause issues for covops scouts, which is unacceptable.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 07:24:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 07:15:00
I would be in favor of implementing a field generator that would decloak and prevent cloaking within a specific range, like 10 - 20km.

When a group of cloaking ships engage someone in hostile/defended system they are nervous and in danger, to what degree depends on the person they are attacking.

The current system is fairly balanced. Bait and gate camps are your best weapon against gangs of cloakers. A system in which it makes it easy to combat cloaking ships that are not actively engaging someone would make recons and blackops battleships worthless. The point of recons/blackops is to engage targets of opportunity. Neutering their ability to select targets at their leisure is game breaking for their class of ships.

Most of the suggested changes would cause issues for covops scouts, which is unacceptable.


Bait means nothing to a red that only wants to sit there bothering you while he's asleep, at work, or playing another game.

Make that decloak range 10-20 _million_ km and it might be useful.

I play a cov ops pilot. I personally think most of these changes would make scouting interesting. You would actually have to think of fuel like a combat pilot must think of ammo. You would have to duck and dodge through gates to avoid being forcibly decloaked by POS devices. Catching you while you are in-system would be just as hard as ever, but you would only be perfectly safe for an hour or so, then you would have to duck through a gate and risk a smartbomb bubble trap.

Wow, running a cov ops ship might actually become something *gasp* interesting.

Of course there will be people who argue in defense of a perfect defense for cov ops ships, many of them are currently abusing how badly broken cloaking is.

The Boogyman
Volatile Nature
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2008.04.21 07:36:00 - [9]
 

If you think about it...this idea is kind of stupid. Do you people realize your trying to tell other people how to play the game? If you want someone to not sit AFK cloaked because your scared of them then thats your problem.

I think we should remove the ability to engage at gates because im getting tired of running into gate camps.

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 07:44:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 08:00:57
I am sorry to hear that you don't find flying a covops interesting.

Jumping in to a large bubble containing any number of interceptors still gets my blood going. I also enjoy the slow times, as I can get a little work done while being useful to my alliance.

I am having a hard time understanding how cloaking is broken. Currently, if you are cloaked you cannot attack. You can be uncloaked by most things that are within 2km of you. If you are worried about being attacking you may want to bring some friends. You may find that you enjoy having friends with you.

The changes you are suggesting is geared towards making cloak usage a headache. Usage of some type of fuel is an interesting idea, however it does not fix the problem you are having. It only makes people do some logistics and setup a GSC with fuel in it. The last thing this game needs is for it to be more of a headache to play.

While I understand that some people may have difficulty setting up bait or getting gate camps together, I don't think that alone justifies nerfing something. EVE is a game of adaptation. You have to adapt to the tactics of others, just like they have to adapt to yours.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:25:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: The Boogyman
If you think about it...this idea is kind of stupid. Do you people realize your trying to tell other people how to play the game? If you want someone to not sit AFK cloaked because your scared of them then thats your problem.

I think we should remove the ability to engage at gates because im getting tired of running into gate camps.


Nah, completely different.

Cloak-and-coast is a perfect example of an "I win" button. You get a benefit with nearly no effort and absolutely no risk. Your enemy has no chance of countering your presence with anything even remotely resembling an equal effort.

I do not believe you can possibly argue convincingly that there is anything resembling parity between the example you gave, and the currently existing perfect AFK defense of a cloak-and-coaster.


Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:35:00 - [12]
 

just do it to non cloaker ships... ie: anything but cov ops, stealth bombers, recons, black ops.... would like to see ships like raven titan mothership get a nerf for using cloaks

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:40:00 - [13]
 

People are going to do things in this game that you do not like, some will have much larger effect on you then someone going AFK and cloaked.

The ideas you want to implement make the class they effect almost usable for the intended purpose. The ideas the CCP have thrown around only affect non-covops cloaks, which I can agree need to have something done bout. Ships that are not specialized for cloaking should not be able to permacloak. However, ships that have the intended role should be able to cloak and should not be able to be decloaked, unless they are about to engage a target or have not take reasonable precautions to ensure someone is not going to be within 2km of them.

Cloaking for the most part is balanced. Just because you don't like a specific play style that is not game breaking does not justify a nerf. They cloaked and are afk, rat/mine to your hearts content as if they are afk they are not going to attack you.

The real issue you have is you want to know if they are afk or not. This game has risk. They take a risk attacking you. You a risk being attacked while in system with them. This is quite balanced.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 08:58:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 08:00:57
I am sorry to hear that you don't find flying a covops interesting.

Jumping in to a large bubble containing any number of interceptors still gets my blood going. I also enjoy the slow times, as I can get a little work done while being useful to my alliance.

I am having a hard time understanding how cloaking is broken. Currently, if you are cloaked you cannot attack. You can be uncloaked by most things that are within 2km of you. If you are worried about being attacking you may want to bring some friends. You may find that you enjoy having friends with you.

The changes you are suggesting is geared towards making cloak usage a headache. Usage of some type of fuel is an interesting idea, however it does not fix the problem you are having. It only makes people do some logistics and setup a GSC with fuel in it. The last thing this game needs is for it to be more of a headache to play.

While I understand that some people may have difficulty setting up bait or getting gate camps together, I don't think that alone justifies nerfing something. EVE is a game of adaptation. You have to adapt to the tactics of others, just like they have to adapt to yours.


Jumping into a large bubble with inties looking for you is a point where the cov ops pilot is actually in danger. Once they get past that point, there is no longer any danger at all. The ideas I propose would force a cov ops pilot to actually risk these encounters now and then - in other words, give defenders a chance to counter.

The current very short decloak range allows cov ops ships to safely escape the vast majority of bubble camps - I've only ever been nailed in one myself, but they still get the blood going, even when they are friendly, and you avoid everyone out of a simple desire to see if you can do it :P

The cloaked and coasting ship is a undefendable threat. There is no counter. When there is a player-controlled game mechanic in a game that has no counter, it is broken.

A stealth bomber is murder on industrial ships and t1 frigates. Especially teir 1 industrials with lots of cargo expanders to slow them down. A decently skilled pilot with the right modules in their bomber can pop out of cloak, lock a T1 indy, and loose a salvo of cruise missiles before anyone even has time to _think_ about responding. Then they can easily go away and cloak for another 8 hours.

For example, the following ship. Single Volley damage over 3000. Very skill intensive and very expensive to build. It is possible to build better, however.

[Purifier, Cloak and Smoke]
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System

Gallente Navy Sensor Booster, Targeting Speed
Gallente Navy Sensor Booster, Targeting Range
Passive Targeting Array I

[empty high slot]
Domination Cruise Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile
Domination Cruise Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile
Domination Cruise Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile
Caldari Navy Cloaking Device

Warhead Calefaction Catalyst II
Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I

If this ship is forced to move around from system to system, eventually it would get brought down.

If it simply sits in a system for 23/7, there is almost zero possibility it will ever get caught attacking without _massive_ efforts. But to avoid that, the player simply doesn't attack if there are enough active people outside stations to engage them.

Psychological warfare with a _real_ threat to back it up is hugely effective when it is impossible to counter.

WillageGirl
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:06:00 - [15]
 

"I really hate how I tend to get outnumbered when ever I engage someone, so I think numbers in engagements should be somehow limited to my favor..." Rolling Eyes

Sorry, I just had to Cool

As for cloaks, thats about the only viable option ( other thank nano gangs ) for small corps or single players to challenge big entities in game, and now even that is coming obsolete with the amount of titans growing. I realize it can get annoying for the carebear types when they don't know if they need to worry about that target in local or not .. but really, isn't that the whole idea of cloaking?

Seriously adapt and stop trying to get everything not fitting in your personal gaming style NERFed.

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:14:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 09:19:29
You don't like that once they are in a system they can pick and choose when to engage. That is a vital part of their class and is something that should not changed. I agree that proto and improved cloaks need some sort of size based nerf, however covops/recons/blackops should not be touched.

The psychological warfare is only a problem if you don't kill them when they do engage. If they never engaged you would realize that and you would just ignore them. The issue is YOU are unable to find a counter that works for your play style so you want them nerfed. This is the same sort of argument that goons bring up with cyno jammers.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:29:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: WillageGirl
"I really hate how I tend to get outnumbered when ever I engage someone, so I think numbers in engagements should be somehow limited to my favor..." Rolling Eyes

Sorry, I just had to Cool

As for cloaks, thats about the only viable option ( other thank nano gangs ) for small corps or single players to challenge big entities in game, and now even that is coming obsolete with the amount of titans growing. I realize it can get annoying for the carebear types when they don't know if they need to worry about that target in local or not .. but really, isn't that the whole idea of cloaking?

Seriously adapt and stop trying to get everything not fitting in your personal gaming style NERFed.


Erm, You seem to think that I cannot see this from the cov ops pilot's point of view.

http://www.newforms.nl/eve/skills/Doc_Iridium

I promise you I will be using the exact ship noted below in a few months. I have other priorities at this time for my training. Sure it will be nice to be able to park my ship in a hostile system and crush industrials, t1 frigates, t1 cruisers, etc. I will abuse this broken part of the game just as hard as I can, even though I know it is broken.

Do I realize how unfair it is? Yes. That's why I am trying to get it fixed, while at the same time I am planning on training for the ability to do it, because the stealth bomber ship will still be extremely useful for fleet battles, raiding, etc. Cov ops ships can be extremely effective even with stealth limitations.

Do I realize that I'm going to be causing FAR more carnage and disruption to the enemy with far less effort than is possible in any other way except infiltration and sabotage? Yes. Will this be extremely good for my ego? Sure. Will it be useful? Sure. Will it be any less broken when I'm doing it? No.

Are you seriously proposing that Titans are a credible counter for cov ops ships?

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:37:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 09:40:20
Again, how is it unbalanced? Are you seriously suggesting that a ship that can solo industrials, T1 frigs and T1 cruisers is overpowered? It looks like logic is out the window at this point.

This whole thing boils down to you only want to engage people on your terms, which is stupid, there I said. This whole thing is stupid. You have yet to even attempt to put forth a logical argument or any rational supportive statements for the nerfing of cloaking ships.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:39:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 09:19:29
You don't like that once they are in a system they can pick and choose when to engage. That is a vital part of their class and is something that should not changed. I agree that proto and improved cloaks need some sort of size based nerf, however covops/recons/blackops should not be touched.

The psychological warfare is only a problem if you don't kill them when they do engage. If they never engaged you would realize that and you would just ignore them. The issue is YOU are unable to find a counter that works for your play style so you want them nerfed. This is the same sort of argument that goons bring up with cyno jammers.


Having to carry fuel for cloaking would not keep you from engaging when you want to, provided that you attack and escape before your fuel runs out.

Having POS'es be able to mount a piece of equipment in high sovereignity systems that can manually disrupt enemy stealth devices one time per hour would allow up to an hour for a player in a stealth ship to find a target and attack. It would also give more meaning to sovereignity.

Stealth can be both extremely effective AND reasonably well implemented at the same time.

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:45:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 09:47:36
I don't know about you but when I go in to hostile space I intend to stay their for much longer then an hour. And at some point I may have to use the bathroom. So you are saying that if I get unlucky and the uncloaker nails me right as I enter the bathroom tough luck? The last thing that remotely affected hostiles ships like this was the remote DD.

Just kill them when they engage or camp them in with a gang. If they are afk they are not a threat and you can go about your business.


Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Again, how is it unbalanced? Are you seriously suggesting that a ship that can solo industrials, T1 frigs and T1 cruisers is unfair? It looks like logic is out the window at this point.


No, I am stating that a ship piloted by one player that cannot be countered except by 23/7 fully active and aware defensive activity by _many_ players is unbalanced.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 09:58:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 09:47:36
I don't know about you but when I go in to hostile space I intend to stay their for much longer then an hour. And at some point I may have to use the bathroom. So you are saying that if I get unlucky and the uncloaker nails me right as I enter the bathroom tough luck? The last thing that remotely affected hostiles ships like this was the remote DD.

Just kill them when they engage or camp them in with a gang. If they are afk they are not a threat and you can go about your business.




There is nothing to stop you from staying in enemy territory for extended periods with a decent implementation. There is nothing to stop you from using the restroom. If you have to hit a bio break, move to a different system, jump to a safe, start coasting, cycle cloak and use the restroom. If you just entered the system, an anti-cloak pos device like I mentioned would not be able to cycle on you for at least 1 hour. Make it require a POS gunner to activate it *shrug*

Maybe the timer on a stealth device should be 20 minutes. Maybe a warning message will appear on the screen after 15 minutes, allowing you to press a button for the next cycle activation before the stealth device is in danger of de-activating.

This is all implementation ideas. Stealth needs to be an effective tool, it doesn't need to be as massively unbalanced and broken as it currently is. There might be a million other ways to make stealth more balanced - my ideas aren't necessarily the best, they are just the ones I have right now.

Nathan Stahn
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 10:00:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 10:00:44
I would agree if that was the only way to counter them, but it is now. If you know that they are in a system you can always fit your ship to counter them, be it warp core stabs, ECCM, Sensor Boosters, ECM.

You are just going to have to adapt. If you are unable to adapt and learn I am surprised you have played this game as long as you have.

Nothing needs to be change, except you. You need to learn how to play.

Doc Iridium
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.04.21 10:26:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 10:00:44
I would agree if that was the only way to counter them, but it is now. If you know that they are in a system you can always fit your ship to counter them, be it warp core stabs, ECCM, Sensor Boosters, ECM.

You are just going to have to adapt. If you are unable to adapt and learn I am surprised you have played this game as long as you have.

Nothing needs to be change, except you. You need to learn how to play.


Exactly, the only way to counter a single stealthed combat ship in a sov 4 system with 200 players is to have 20 of them at every belt, station, and gate, with bubbles. 23 hours per day. I'm glad you are starting to see it my way.

Sure, we can adapt, and spend 100+ ACTIVE player manhours for every manhour that the cov ops cloaker is sleeping,working, eating, or using the restroom - as well as when they are actually playing.

The fact that one player can force such a huge effort to be taken to counter them is an absolute indication that something is severely broken. It's one thing to be a good player and cause much damage to your enemies. It's something completely different to be able to force your enemies to utilize massive resources and time to counter you - when you are asleep.

Can we play against active players, at least? Would that be OK? Or do you insist that players that are asleep deserve to be able to threaten players _actually_ playing?

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.04.21 10:50:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Brother Welcome on 21/04/2008 10:57:16
Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 08:00:57I am having a hard time understanding how cloaking is broken.


Off grid cloaking has no counter, which goes against the principle for games that any tactic will have a counter-tactic. In the vernacular 'broken' would be a reasonable term to apply, but that shouldn't be confused with imba.

Is off-grid cloaking in hostile territory imba? I concur with the OP that such ships impact the game out of proportion to their effort or risk. Of course, nothing stops the tactic being used right back at the corp or alliance the cloaking pilot belongs to.

The bottom line for me is that while the OP raises reasonable concerns about an uncounterable tactic, it's still important to give priority to the most pressing issues.

-vk









Xavia Cameron
Caldari
Capital Core Collectives
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:26:00 - [26]
 

The problem you are all missing is that any nerf to AFK cloakers is a direct nerf to active cloakers.

If you can no longer have someone sit in a system all damn day unless they have a cov ops cloak, the second you see someone in there, you know he is a cov ops cloaker. AFK cloakers are all about the doubt they bring and people will never undock when they see someone in local if AFK cloaking isn't possible.

What people fail to realize is AFK cloaking is not a tactic. It is a counter-tactic, it breaks the I know all of local channel.

(If the cloaker isn't even cov ops/SB you will be able to warp out before they can lock you anyway.. 50% resolution penalty \o/)

Also, a cloak isn't much of a cloak if you can be found while using it is it?

Fenren
Minmatar
Bure Astro Photography
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:31:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Fenren on 21/04/2008 11:33:22
Originally by: Doc Iridium
Originally by: Nathan Stahn
Edited by: Nathan Stahn on 21/04/2008 10:00:44
I would agree if that was the only way to counter them, but it is now. If you know that they are in a system you can always fit your ship to counter them, be it warp core stabs, ECCM, Sensor Boosters, ECM.

You are just going to have to adapt. If you are unable to adapt and learn I am surprised you have played this game as long as you have.

Nothing needs to be change, except you. You need to learn how to play.


Exactly, the only way to counter a single stealthed combat ship in a sov 4 system with 200 players is to have 20 of them at every belt, station, and gate, with bubbles. 23 hours per day. I'm glad you are starting to see it my way.

Sure, we can adapt, and spend 100+ ACTIVE player manhours for every manhour that the cov ops cloaker is sleeping,working, eating, or using the restroom - as well as when they are actually playing.

The fact that one player can force such a huge effort to be taken to counter them is an absolute indication that something is severely broken. It's one thing to be a good player and cause much damage to your enemies. It's something completely different to be able to force your enemies to utilize massive resources and time to counter you - when you are asleep.

Can we play against active players, at least? Would that be OK? Or do you insist that players that are asleep deserve to be able to threaten players _actually_ playing?


check your maps and locate a few shokepoints... now blob those and you can cut off a lot of space... security is hard to maintain and it should be!

give your transports some support and use t2 or larger TANKED ones (not teir 1 full of cargoexpanders). if you fly untanked ships you can not be angry if they die to some random cloaked guy, especially since you know he is in system.

edit: oooo! the poster above me has some really good points. read that post!

Evil Spy
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:33:00 - [28]
 

just make cloaking like it was in EnB (good ol' times)

once you cloak your cap recharge rate drops to 0 (zero), i.e. cap doesn't recharge. This is pretty obvious to hide the reactor signature (someone add some star trek sentence in here)

Now all you need to do is making the Covert Ops device use a tiny amuont of energy.

so at the end, the more energy you had before cloaking, the longer you cloak.

now if you setup your covert ops with batteries and battery rigs you get roughly 900 capacity.

so I guess just make it use 0.5 cap per second of activation which gives you about 30mins if you've been at 100%

Fenren
Minmatar
Bure Astro Photography
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:35:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Evil Spy
just make cloaking like it was in EnB (good ol' times)

once you cloak your cap recharge rate drops to 0 (zero), i.e. cap doesn't recharge. This is pretty obvious to hide the reactor signature (someone add some star trek sentence in here)

Now all you need to do is making the Covert Ops device use a tiny amuont of energy.

so at the end, the more energy you had before cloaking, the longer you cloak.

now if you setup your covert ops with batteries and battery rigs you get roughly 900 capacity.

so I guess just make it use 0.5 cap per second of activation which gives you about 30mins if you've been at 100%


that would make a carrier easy to cloak and a frigg hard... and i think most agree that it should be the other way around

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.04.21 11:39:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Xavia Cameron
What people fail to realize is AFK cloaking is not a tactic. It is a counter-tactic, it breaks the I know all of local channel.



Yes, I'm aware of the irony of the fact that cloakers appear in local being what makes the psychological effect of AFK cloaking work. I just didn't want to derail the OP's concerns into an argument about local at this time.

-vk


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

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