Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

Light carrier - cloaky hunter

Author
#1 - 2017-04-17 21:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
I have an idea that is based on the recurring idea of a light/escort carrier and many of the well-known arguments for and against light/escort carriers also apply to this idea. I do not know whether a similar idea has been proposed before. In my mind, I would probably call it a light carrier. My idea is to turn a light carrier into a ship with capabilities to detect and de-cloak cloaked ships.

This idea is somewhat inspired by real-life anti-submarine warfare where helicopters are launched from carriers and are used to search for submarines.

The main reason for this particular idea is to use the fighter mechanics to manually control where the fighters should go. This is, to my knowledge, currently not possible with drones.

Special equipment that can only be used by light carriers:

- Special probes that detects active cloaking devices. The probes should be launched from an expanded probe launcher/special probe launcher. The probes only detect active cloaking devices.
- Detection pulse that radiates from the light carrier to indicate a rough position on the overview.
- Detection support fighters that can be sent to the location on the overview to search for and de-cloak cloaked ships. They sent out a detection pulse that will deactivate the active cloaking devices within the area.

Search and de-cloaking process – concept (specifics to be decided):

- Use the detection probes to identify the search area in a solar system where a cloaked ship is located. Since cloaked ships are supposed to find the search area should be rather big.
- The light carrier then warps to the search area and activate its detection pulse which will indicate a rough location where a cloaked ship is located in the search area.
- The detection support fighters are sent to the rough location on the overview. This is where the manual control of the fighters is necessary in order to search the area. If the cloaked ship is hit by the detection pulse of the fighters it de-cloaks.

Only active cloaking devices are detected, i.e. that ships cloaked after a jump through a star gate will not be detected and neither will non-cloaked ships. The detection pulse causes no damage to the cloaked ship.

Considerations:

Since this is mostly a basic idea I have not thought about all the details detection/search process or about the light carrier itself. However, my general considerations are:

- I would suggest 2 launch tubes for a total of two fighter squadrons, and it can launch one light fighter squadron and up to two support fighter squadrons.
- The light carrier should be a T1 ship class with a size between a battleship and an orca so that it can go into hisec as well (since fighters can already be launched from citadels i hisec, fighters are already in hisec).
- The light carrier should have no ship maintenance bay, fleet hangar, or jump drive.
- In terms of damage I would say that it should be comparable to a top-end battleship with the main damage coming from the light fighters. This could be supported by some cruiser sized weapon batteries for close-range protection against smaller ships (maybe with bonuses for damage application rather than damage). I think that damage from fighters can be adjusted by changing squadron size, the usability of special fighter abilities etc.

This is my basic idea. I know some will think it is a bad idea, but that is fair enough – opinions differ. It may also be that some of you have even better ideas. So please discuss.

Based on feedback I have made revised version of the light carrier which is a scrapping of anti-cloaking abilities to adding cloaking abilities. Please see post #18. As noted in that post this may also be considered a very bad idea
P.
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2017-04-17 21:52:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Maria Dragoon
Look here. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=397030&find=unread

People have already listed a number of reasons why a cloak hunting ship is problematic.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

#3 - 2017-04-17 21:55:08 UTC
Thanks for making me aware of that.
I was not aware of that thread.
#4 - 2017-04-18 05:11:13 UTC
While that thread is useful and all, the title stifles a lot of otherwise useful discussion.

Not every cloaky ship that someone wants to hunt is an AFK Cloaky Camper.

Does not matter why you want to hunt a cloaked ship, if it's in space, then it should be vulnerable to non-consensual PvP.

The current cloak mechanics do not support that. Once activated there is no way to hunt a cloaked ship that does not involve the consent of the pilot of that ship. You can bait them or camp gates, but unless they choose to take bait or travel through regions that are being actively blockaded there is nothing you can do to force any action on a cloaked ship whatsoever.
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2017-04-18 06:10:34 UTC
No, you cannot delete cloaks from the game, go away.
#6 - 2017-04-18 07:02:45 UTC
Well I was gonna move one of my alts to Tama, but if this was a thing I couldn't do that, it's crazy there and survival depends on a cloaky ship in there, pirates be like arrrrrrrrr.
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-04-18 11:33:44 UTC
An "anti-cloak" thread. Is it that time of the year, month, week again?

I best kobold Aura voice: Another one? Really? REALLY???
#8 - 2017-04-18 12:21:41 UTC
Anna-Elizabeth DeWitt wrote:
An "anti-cloak" thread. Is it that time of the year, month, week again?

I best kobold Aura voice: Another one? Really? REALLY???




This one is different, he stapled the idea to the light escort carrier idea that comes up from time to time.
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-04-18 13:02:38 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Anna-Elizabeth DeWitt wrote:
An "anti-cloak" thread. Is it that time of the year, month, week again?

I best kobold Aura voice: Another one? Really? REALLY???




This one is different, he stapled the idea to the light escort carrier idea that comes up from time to time.


I understand. Now listen to my brilliant idee how to make players use the ingame voicechat more. Chances are good that local chat has to go away as a side effect.
#10 - 2017-04-18 13:16:32 UTC
Anna-Elizabeth DeWitt wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Anna-Elizabeth DeWitt wrote:
An "anti-cloak" thread. Is it that time of the year, month, week again?

I best kobold Aura voice: Another one? Really? REALLY???




This one is different, he stapled the idea to the light escort carrier idea that comes up from time to time.


I understand. Now listen to my brilliant idee how to make players use the ingame voicechat more. Chances are good that local chat has to go away as a side effect.




Sigh, and there it is. This local going away thing is something that I lay awake at night thinking about.

Now I'm all conflicted.
#11 - 2017-04-18 13:50:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Does not matter why you want to hunt a cloaked ship, if it's in space, then it should be vulnerable to non-consensual PvP.

The current cloak mechanics do not support that. Once activated there is no way to hunt a cloaked ship that does not involve the consent of the pilot of that ship. You can bait them or camp gates, but unless they choose to take bait or travel through regions that are being actively blockaded there is nothing you can do to force any action on a cloaked ship whatsoever.

Once upon a time you could scan cloaked ships with probes, warp to them and shoot them, and the players complained because cloaked should mean that you cannot be located. The great gods of EvE (CCP) decided to have pity on the players and gave us cloaked ships that cannot be located. So in typical fashion now the players complain because you cannot find these magical cloaked ships. Can you people make up your minds about what the hell you want so the rest of us can adapt and move on.

Personal thought here, the game needs fewer capital ships not more of them so for that reason alone I say no to your idea.
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2017-04-18 15:14:33 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Does not matter why you want to hunt a cloaked ship, if it's in space, then it should be vulnerable to non-consensual PvP.

The current cloak mechanics do not support that. Once activated there is no way to hunt a cloaked ship that does not involve the consent of the pilot of that ship. You can bait them or camp gates, but unless they choose to take bait or travel through regions that are being actively blockaded there is nothing you can do to force any action on a cloaked ship whatsoever.

Once upon a time you could scan cloaked ships with probes, warp to them and shoot them, and the players complained because cloaked should mean that you cannot be located. The great gods of EvE (CCP) decided to have pity on the players and gave us cloaked ships that cannot be located. So in typical fashion now the players complain because you cannot find these magical cloaked ships. Can you people make up your minds about what the hell you want so the rest of us can adapt and move on.



It's probably less people needing to make up their mind but different point of view. I've always though game designer should think really hard about any mechanics it's player base suggest being done AFK unless it was designed to be done that way because while it might be "emergent gameplay", I have a hard time thinking it's really positive when your game is being played by "not playing". For example, I would have hard-killed afk ratting a long time ago if I had the power.
#13 - 2017-04-20 11:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
Thank you for your feedback. As I expected, there are different opinions concerning my idea and that is fine.

In my mind cloaked ships should be difficult to find and as such the detection and de-cloaking process should both demand considerable skill, time, and effort (and maybe a bit of luck). Given all the variables on the ships, modules, and fighters, I think it is possible to find the right balance. However, in the end it is for CCP to decide so we just have to wait and see what happens.

Just a note about the ship itself, it is not meant to be a capital ship with a size between a battleship and an orca. Some may say that fighters are for capital ships, but at the moment EVE already features oversized weapons for ships, like heavy drones for cruisers or large sized guns for battle cruisers. So this would fall into the same category I think (and as noted earlier, fighters are already in hisec via citadels).

Anyway, I personally hope that at some point in time CCP will decide to introduce some kind of light carrier. This will also help future carrier pilots to get used to fighter mechanics before spending 1+ billion of isk on a carrier. But again, this is for CCP to decide.
#14 - 2017-04-20 12:41:27 UTC
So my experience has been that as soon as I enter local in many null ratting systems - everyone docks up. I'm not particularly good at pvp, so I don't think there is and "Oh poop, it's Serendipity Lost - everyone - run for you lives!!" None the less, everyone docks and ceases farming. Being a wh gal, there are times when I'm in a cloaky ship (check my loss boards - it's not that often). Mostly I'm not in a cloaky and everyone still docks up.

Here's the thing. You can look at my corps KB and quickly figure out how many of us there might be and what we fly. We lose enough ships on a regular basis that it's pretty easy to come up with a good guess as to how we fit our ships. So, the following info is easily available:
1 - average numbers (pretty low by null standards)
2 - ships and fits
3 - we are wh folk and we don't cyno anything into a fight, so that's not an issue

Given all that, I can still pop into a SOV null system and dock 40 guys and get no fights. If I hang around for an hour or so, eventually someone comes out and the engagement quickly involves a mothership and we run for it.

What's the point of all of this??

I don't think cloaked ships are the problem in SOV null. You guys take an hour or so for 40 guys to line up a cyno and a mom to engage 20 (at best, more like 6 on average) low class wh folk. So here's what I recommend. Get some response fleets together, get out there and engage folks in your space and have some fun. To be clear, waiting an hour and bringing 5X the numbers and a mother ship isn't engaging and having fun. When you pull crap like that - I'm happy to cloak up a bomber in your system and watch you all log off in anger. That's the option you leave me with.

Even if CCP put your light carrier afk hunter in game - 99% of the null bears would still stay docked up for a cloaked player. The light escort carrier might as well be a mother ship because as soon as the first 100 get ganked by cloaky cyno gangs the norm would quickly shift to:
1 - get motherships on standby
2 - undock light carrier
3 - find cloaky
4 - cyno in overwhelming odds

You guys won't risk a freaking hurricane, what makes you think players will risk a light carrier to uncloak someone??? They won't. This would only be used when a sufficient overkill is on standby. You don't need a new ship class - you need to undock reasonable response fleets and engage folks that enter your space.

Heck, put a cyno in the highs of every ratting ship and keep that overkill fleet on standby for the whole constellation. Then if someone cloaks in your system - who cares. Rat rat rat and when he uncloaks and tackles you - light your cyno.

The counter play for cloaked ships is already there - you don't need a whole new ship class - you need bigger goji berries in your underpants.
#15 - 2017-04-20 12:56:24 UTC
As soon as I read "cloaky hunter", I got excited and rushed here, only to be disappointed. I really hoped someone was mad enough to come up with a stealth carrier.

Anyway, your idea for a cloak hunter is bad, OP. Rewrite it to be a cloaky hunter instead and we can talk. P
#16 - 2017-04-20 16:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
@Serendipity Lost -
If these are the dynamics you see in nullsec, then a light carrier may not be the answer. If this is the way things are and they are well balanced there may not be a need to change it. However, based on your description the defender can only react to the attacker when the attacker chooses to de-cloak and engage. There is no way for the defender to search for cloaked ships proactively before an attack occurs (which in my mind is counter play to cloaking, but maybe that is just a matter of definition Blink ).

@Owen Levanth -
Would it be more to your liking if the anti-cloaking capabilities are scrapped, give it the ability to use a covert cloak and maybe even some stealth fighters that can cloak until they attack Big smile? Maybe this ship type has a better chance to be introduced to the game Big smile... probably not Big smile.

Overall, my idea is just that.. an idea. I never said it was good P.
#17 - 2017-04-20 17:22:19 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
@Serendipity Lost -
If these are the dynamics you see in nullsec, then a light carrier may not be the answer. If this is the way things are and they are well balanced there may not be a need to change it. However, based on your description the defender can only react to the attacker when the attacker chooses to de-cloak and engage. There is no way for the defender to search for cloaked ships proactively before an attack occurs (which in my mind is counter play to cloaking, but maybe that is just a matter of definition Blink ).

@Owen Levanth -
Would it be more to your liking if the anti-cloaking capabilities are scrapped, give it the ability to use a covert cloak and maybe even some stealth fighters that can cloak until they attack Big smile? Maybe this ship type has a better chance to be introduced to the game Big smile... probably not Big smile.

Overall, my idea is just that.. an idea. I never said it was good P.




I like the final idea. As a light carrier it should be able to pass through all but frigate WH.
#18 - 2017-04-20 17:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
@Serendipity Lost & Owen Levanth:

Based on the above by scrapping the anti-cloak abilities and adding cloak abilities, it could look something like described below:

- Add cloak ability - whether covert or non-covert is up for discussion. If it is a T1 ship it will probably be non-covert.
- I would suggest 1 launch tube for a total of one fighter squadron, and it can launch one light fighter squadron (a suggestion could be a new light fighter type that would have cloaking abilities, but this is probably too overpowered Big smile). If 2 launch tubes are suggested, the second should be for a support fighter squadron.
- The light carrier should be a T1 ship, non-capital, class with a size between a battleship and an orca so that it can go into hisec as well (since fighters can already be launched from citadels i hisec, fighters are already in hisec).
- It may enter all but frigate worm holes (up for discussion).
- The light carrier should have no ship maintenance bay, fleet hangar, or jump drive.
- In terms of damage I would say that it should be comparable to a top-end battleship with the main damage coming from the light fighters. This could be supported by some cruiser sized weapon batteries for close-range protection against smaller ships (maybe with bonuses for damage application rather than damage). I think that damage from fighters can be adjusted by changing squadron size, the usability of special fighter abilities etc.

Just to make a note right away - this may be a VERY BAD idea P.
Elemental Tide
#19 - 2017-04-20 19:24:45 UTC
I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, cloaky campers who can sit afk all day, with the ability to hotdrop the entire world onto your ratting or mining op at a moment's notice is broken bad. There should be more effort required to shut down the economic engine of a system and crash the indexes. Another sign that it is broken is the most frequently suggested counter to it is to do the exact same thing in the form of a counter drop. If a counter to something is to do the same thing, it's generally badly overpowered.

At the same time, I used to live in Thera, jumping into someone else's wormhole every single day. There is a distinct thrill of sneaking around, undetected, in someone else's space. I feel like these things would almost be like adding local to wormhole space. Going to do a big ratting op? Probe the place out, then, once it's all clear, go. The unknown is what makes wormholes exciting, and I would hate to see that go.

Maybe it would be ok if the probes' scan range was fairly short, and they used some sort of search pattern (maybe specified to a certain place if you want to search a certain place faster). This way, if you're savvy, you can warp out of the way of the probes before they can detect you and stay completely undetected in a wormhole, while also not making probing with these things too tedious.

Also, while the ship design looks fairly balanced, I'm not sure what I feel about tying something like this to a single ship, and I'm not too fond of creating too many additional ship classes. Maybe give it to Marauders (because they could use some love) + the Nestor (because it just makes sense).
Forum Jump