Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
2 Pages12Next page
 

Idea for; New Propulsion module for cloaky gameplay.

Author
#1 - 2017-04-18 02:07:27 UTC
Might be cool to look into a type of afterburner that require about the same to fit as the afterburner but the speed is half that of it.

However this one can be active/activated while running cloak.

The higher meta on the module, the higher ship velocity and a positive change on the targeting systems when decloaking.

Sensor Recalibration Time - which normally draws a line on how long before you can lock-on a target after decloaking. The higher the meta on this module, the higher % cuts this effect.

Scan Resolution bonus - which normally decreases the lock-on speed by a % after the sensor recalibration time. Will now have its negative effect decreased by a % depending on the meta level of the micro-afterburner.

Maximum Velocity Modifier - which normally is a negative bonus on each cloaking device(except Cov-ops) is reduced by a % to be less negative, the more the higher meta of the micro-afterburner. However no effect on the Cov-ops cloaking device, since a % reduction of a negative modifier can't go above 100%. (It's a bonus reduction of the already negative effect, not a bonus to ship velocity!)


Hopefully this draft is something CCP could play with.
#2 - 2017-04-18 02:39:57 UTC
Cloaked ships don't need a buff like this.
#3 - 2017-04-18 02:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: King Xiskogen
Well the exact figures would be up for CCP to balance. But I think this change could make non-stealthy ships more attractive for cloaking devices. Maybe make it so that the recalibration stuff doesn't affect ships with already set cloaking bonus and the cov-ops cloak(just the velocity).
#4 - 2017-04-18 05:18:17 UTC
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.

Wormholer for life.

Tactical Supremacy
#5 - 2017-04-18 05:45:45 UTC
I think it's at least worth playing with as of course you'd have to replace something you'd need in the midslots with it.
Hole Control
#6 - 2017-04-18 09:16:57 UTC
King Xiskogen wrote:
Well the exact figures would be up for CCP to balance. But I think this change could make non-stealthy ships more attractive for cloaking devices. Maybe make it so that the recalibration stuff doesn't affect ships with already set cloaking bonus and the cov-ops cloak(just the velocity).


Yes and CCP decided to not allow activation any module in cloak.

-1
#7 - 2017-04-18 09:34:01 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


This. This idea is essentially "make the drawbacks of cloaks no longer matter", which can not happen.
#8 - 2017-04-18 09:48:47 UTC
A single module that negates all the drawbacks of a cloak. What could possibly be wrong with that?

At the very least, move all these into different modules so that it at least looks like we give a **** about balance.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#9 - 2017-04-18 11:14:54 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
A single module that negates all the drawbacks of a cloak. What could possibly be wrong with that?

At the very least, move all these into different modules so that it at least looks like we give a **** about balance.


Jeez. NOT ALL. maye at officer meta, the drawback is 50% of the exsisting cloak attributes.!?
Caldari State
#10 - 2017-04-18 15:25:01 UTC
Hah, be funny to fit one of these on a blops battleship. Cloaking to chase down kite-cancer.

+1 just to kill the nano-meta with blops battleships Blink
#11 - 2017-04-18 15:31:24 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


What drawbacks are there for covops ships, in your opinion? Several of them are amongst the best value for money vessels in the game.
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2017-04-18 15:47:06 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Hah, be funny to fit one of these on a blops battleship. Cloaking to chase down kite-cancer.

+1 just to kill the nano-meta with blops battleships Blink


The fun part is he probably didn't think that BLOPS don't use COV OP cloaks but regular ones and how broken his idea would be on them.
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2017-04-18 18:17:13 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


This. This idea is essentially "make the drawbacks of cloaks no longer matter", which can not happen.


The whines from the carebears would be deafening. They already cry like babies when you can't activate a module on your cloaked ship.

But yes, mitigating the draw backs to cloaks is not a good idea.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2017-04-18 18:18:15 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


What drawbacks are there for covops ships, in your opinion? Several of them are amongst the best value for money vessels in the game.


Well you can't turn on any modules while the cloak is active for starters....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

#15 - 2017-04-18 18:27:00 UTC
King Xiskogen wrote:
Well the exact figures would be up for CCP to balance. But I think this change could make non-stealthy ships more attractive for cloaking devices. Maybe make it so that the recalibration stuff doesn't affect ships with already set cloaking bonus and the cov-ops cloak(just the velocity).


Non-cloaky ships aren't supposed to be super attractive options to fit a cloaking device on, that's why the ships that *do* get to fit a cloak tend to pay dearly for it in tank, gank, price, and a lack of other bonuses.
#16 - 2017-04-19 02:26:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


What drawbacks are there for covops ships, in your opinion? Several of them are amongst the best value for money vessels in the game.


Well you can't turn on any modules while the cloak is active for starters....


No, but you can as soon as you decloak (except targeted weapons unless you're a BLOPS). You can activate any defensive or prop module you please. You can also activate a cloak as soon as you uncloak from a gate, there's also the MWD/cloak trick, thus allowing remotely skilled pilots with a brain a chance to cloakywarp non covops ships.

Geez it's almost like not being able to shoot anything while cloaked is hardly an issue.
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2017-04-19 13:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
A somewhat disruptive Idea, a lot of balance work would need to be done, as I can see quite a few areas it could cause issues. None of them are impossible to deal with, but still, quite involved.

The question is more why.

Is there a significant problem caused by the current mechanic?

Is there a significant improvement in game play going to be achieved by it?

Are there technical reasons why it would make the game more maintainable by the devs, or would it make it more complicated even if possible?

Does it "step on the toes" of covert ops ships and blops, making them more or less desireable?

Does anyone actually want it?

Would it be FUN

I cannot think of answers to these questions that would justify the development and balancing efforts. I may just lack imagination.

I am open to having my mind changed if these questions have a good answer.
#18 - 2017-04-19 13:26:25 UTC
I'm not going to put more energy into this, it looks like the majority doesn't want this to happen, but then again majority of eve players don't want change. they are simply put afraid of it.
If CCP sees this, they will either think, huh this could be something, or they dismiss it entirely, I just want them to have a quick look. Because i think this could be interesting to look into.

Some energy: Could make the micro afterburner be 50% less effective outside stealth with cov-ops cloaks ? or that they really don't want to interact at all. Like anything is possible.
Possible lore, the only faction that needs to be filled is a pirate faction or something that is a combination of minmatar and caldari.
i think that was brought up @fanfest.
#19 - 2017-04-19 13:49:13 UTC
King Xiskogen wrote:
I'm not going to put more energy into this, it looks like the majority doesn't want this to happen, but then again majority of eve players don't want change. they are simply put afraid of it.
If CCP sees this, they will either think, huh this could be something, or they dismiss it entirely, I just want them to have a quick look. Because i think this could be interesting to look into.

Some energy: Could make the micro afterburner be 50% less effective outside stealth with cov-ops cloaks ? or that they really don't want to interact at all. Like anything is possible.
Possible lore, the only faction that needs to be filled is a pirate faction or something that is a combination of minmatar and caldari.
i think that was brought up @fanfest.


What kills this is that there are several uses for something like this that are just massively OP. The main drawback to fitting a cloak on a non-bonused ship is speed reduction, and this if not removes then significantly mitigates that drawback.

It also breaks the rule about module activation while cloaked, which is another point against it.

Seriously, just look up the WMD+cloak trick for an example of why this would be super OP, or look at how easy it would be to completely safely move around grid, make bookmarks, or setup warp-ins if a Cov-Ops could fit an AB while cloaked.

This has nothing to do with majority rule, this has to do with a lot of people able to look at something and see the wider gameplay implications, and no one including yourself having a decent argument against those issues.
#20 - 2017-04-19 13:54:48 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Cloaking in Eve is a very powerful tool. That is why the drawbacks on it are severe, to compensate for it. Adding a module like this would require a complete overhaul of the cloaking-mechanics to remain balanced.


What drawbacks are there for covops ships, in your opinion? Several of them are amongst the best value for money vessels in the game.


Well you can't turn on any modules while the cloak is active for starters....


No, but you can as soon as you decloak (except targeted weapons unless you're a BLOPS). You can activate any defensive or prop module you please. You can also activate a cloak as soon as you uncloak from a gate, there's also the MWD/cloak trick, thus allowing remotely skilled pilots with a brain a chance to cloakywarp non covops ships.

Geez it's almost like not being able to shoot anything while cloaked is hardly an issue.



I just search all relevant kb. A cloaked ship NEVER harmed another ship.


And back and forth we go. It's a several years long argument. The only players even remotely bothered by cloaks are those that allow their own personal fears control them. The 'what if' players that imagine all sorts of bad consequences while huddled in their POS/citadel/station getting angry at the unfairness of cloaks. The surprising part is most of this angst comes from null bears that allegedly (game myth / legend) control and police the space they own. I would assume this unrest comes primarily from space renting groups and that trickles up to their landlords as unhappy tenants are a pain in the mailbox.

Do cloaked ships need an AB that works while cloaked? Not at all.


Let's not have this bad idea degrade into a pro/anti cloaking debate.

2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump