I’m not spending hours making a blueprint for a new game mechanic and typing it up! That’s CCP’s job in the Game Development department.
I Guarantee not one Idea one this Forum that has been posted was ever put into game exactly as the poster initially typed up. Its much faster to have people pull it apart and come up with variations that might work better than to try and get it right first time.
And now I have wasted 2 mins of my life explaining why I post the way I do.
Next time focus on the general idea and pull it apart and when I reply with an update try and understand that I never intended to have it as ‘good to go’ product to be installed in the next patch.
You know there is a good reason why Wormholes are the least used part of space despite being hands down the most profitable, right?
It’s the perfect object lesson on why cloaks need a rebalance. This despite the fact that they can’t bridge things in and the residence have unprecedented control of the entrances to their space.
Sure, they don’t have a problem with ‘AFK’ cloakers, but when a module becomes nearly a requirement for every hull precisely because it eliminates the possibility of non-consensual interaction… that’s an issue.
Because you can’t Hotdrop a Quadrillion ISK worth of SuperCaps into a Wormhole at a moment’s notice?
Seriously, the biggest advocates for nerfing Cloaks are hard core crybaby Null Sec’ers who rely entirely on Local telling them when they need to run and hide b/c a strange face entered system. And until that face goes away, they can’t rest assured that they are free to go back to their completely carefree living in Lawless Space.
You keep using the word “non-consensual” the same way everyone uses “Risk vs Reward” as a bumper sticker tagline to justify all the worst ideas in creation. You think you should be able to engage the spies in your system, and you’re butthurt they aren’t letting you track them down. Meanwhile, they’re spying on you without your consent, and you’re butthurt over that too. They aren’t letting you mine or rat in peace, so there’s your non-consensual gameplay. They’re disrupting you.
Cry my a river of tears… And then build a bridge, and get over it.
No, the ability to warp breaks it completely. As we have told you many times before, you are not going to catch a spy/cyno ship/etc that doesn’t want to be caught because they can warp between safespots faster than you can track them. The end result of your proposals will not be catching cloaked ships and forcing them to fight on your terms, because they will continue to warp between safespots faster than you can track them. The sole effect of your proposals would be to increase safety for RMTers by improving their intel tools, whether by putting cloaked ships on probes/d-scan so you can spam the scan button and warp out as soon as the cloaked ship comes within 5AU or by making it impossible to stay logged in while AFK and therefore making local a 100% accurate warning of the presence of an active potential threat (and, by extension, a 100% accurate notice that the threat has left and it is safe to resume RMTing).
If they warp away before I get there, then they neither let me catch them and I didn’t let them spy.
That’s EVE, and that’s OK. Good even.
They won’t continue to warp between safespots indefinitely unless they are a bot. We all know that bots and people that ‘play’ afk are the devil and should be eradicated.
You just want your free bot playstyle to remain totally safe and totally effective without any effort on your part. Everyone else actually playing the game just wants a chance to shoot you.
Again you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the game. They will warp between safespots indefinitely, unless you stop chasing them. There is no limit on how long you can avoid being caught this way, and when the penalty of stopping is losing your ship of course you’re going to keep going.
Everyone else actually playing the game just wants a chance to shoot you.
Then why do you keep making proposals that will not produce additional PvP engagements, and have a sole benefit of making RMT farming safer and more efficient?
If you are alone in enemy space then you won’t be able to keep that up 23/7… unlike the residents who would have the manpower to take it in shifts. Oh, and hey look… they got farmers going while someone is actively providing for their defense… seems like how the game is supposed to played to me.
How about pilot error? People make mistakes, and mistakes get people killed.
This is how stupid your position is. It requires a superhuman player to be legal, or a bot which is illegal.
At which point they log out. Which, as we have established, is the real purpose of your proposals: making it impossible to stay logged in while AFK and therefore making local more accurate and effective as a defense tool for RMTers.
I love how you always go for the weak sauce ad hominem. You can’t defend your position so you try to demonize those opposed to you as garbage humans and RMT.
RMT, like BOTs, are already illegal in game. You don’t balance around something that’s illegal, you just ban them when you find them.
No, it’s not about protecting RMT. It’s about playing the game in an intelligent fashion, and what’s good for one side is good for the other.
They are everyone’s problem. Allowing a game mechanic (nullsec farming) to be overpowered just because the people abusing it aren’t currently in space with you is not acceptable. Proper game design does not require immediate proximity.
You can’t defend your position so you try to demonize those opposed to you as garbage humans and RMT.
It’s not demonizing, it’s simple truth. Strong and competent players don’t care about AFK cloakers because they never present a vulnerable target. RMT botters and players/alliances whose collective skills are equivalent to a RMT bot do care, because they are weak and the only means of survival they know is “dock at all times a threat could exist”. And yet they feel entitled to farming revenue, probably because RMTing successfully means getting the cash they need.
No, it’s not about protecting RMT. It’s about playing the game in an intelligent fashion, and what’s good for one side is good for the other.
Oh, sure, it’s just a complete coincidence that all of your ideas have the sole result of increasing safety for RMTers and renter trash. Can’t possibly be about protecting RMTers…
It continually amazes me you have the temerity to call others weak.
All you have to do to disrupt that farming is go there in any combat ship. As you yourself have whined on many an occasion the farmers will leave the space (aka stop farming). Seems pretty easy to me, you don’t even have to shoot anything if you don’t want to. So long as you evade the systems’s defenders you can even do this in a newbie ship.
And yet to do this you require someone to hold your hand with a module that not only costs nearly nothing to fit but also makes you immune to anyone that comes to defend the system. Even the effort of warping around and evading them is just too hard for you. How sad.
@ISD how is this thread still going? It’s clearly just another avenue for people to complain about Cloaks. And we all know which thread they should be voicing their cries of terror about the invisible Boogeymen into…
Do not compare against the idealistic local nerf without cloak nerf, but against the current situation:
A) Bubble would decloak a ship once per minute (well, per alt), with a decent 15s warning for the cloaked ship. Keep 100+ range, wait for the end of the pulse and approach or warp on the target. It will see you only when you uncloak on top of it.
B) Being paranoid that a cloaked ship entering several AU zone leads to warping to station is doable now by seeing anyone in local, so nothing would change. Plus with sufficiently slow probes this advanced warning is essentially a placebo, like the 100km bubble is. Lastly, the fight would be 2 of your ships against one cloakie (which cannot bring a hotdrop on you with the cyno nerf).
C) You are required to use an alt for that safety, unlike now where local provides an even better version of it (and a possibility of a friendly hotdrop helps further)
Also note that suggestion 1 nerfs local significantly. I believe that despite nerf of cloaked ships proposed, they would still end up significantly better as hunters. A single ship (except if destroyer) has no early warning against a cloaked one at all, unlike now. You would require at least one alt or a friend for an imperfect warning system - still much better than now.
For the cyno part - you could cyno ships elsewhere, not directly in the heat of the battle. Get the ship(s) cynoed in somewhere reasonably safe, wait until they are fully operational and fight then - instead of just teleport in a bigger stick with the main risk of a counter-drop.
Yes, this would severely screw up hotdrops, present tons of logistics issues etc, but I believe combat viability of the capital ships should be mainly retained.
Well, warp disruptor range covers some of that distance, and you have a bit extra time as you need to lock the target, but yeah, you are right, 100km is way too much. The other problem with 100km range is that warping on the probed ship at 100km would leave you on the edge of uncloak bubble and this is a problem too.
~50km would work though, changed proposal to that number. You can land far enough to be out of immediate danger and you can close in fast enough if you have faction WD and overheat it. 30km base range would require 233m/s, which isn’t anything special, though +40m/s for every 2km less base range quickly pushes the number up (so the ordinary T2 would need pretty high 353m/s).
As for warping, there should be tons of wrecks and also structures or asteroids. I doubt you would have any troubles to find a suitable warp destination leaving you close to the target.
The only thing that would be a pain to hunt are supers due to their excessive WCS bonuses (I know it is better than the direct immunity it used to be, but still…) as there would be no cyno to light on top of them and bring in dictors and HICs. On the other hand, they would be unable to call instant help too and given they are usually locals they have a sizeable advantage here.
Ignoring those WCS bonuses, covops ships should be better off I believe. Bringing 2x T3C against a super + T3D (so there is no advance warning in local at all) should work if the rest of the fleet is waiting on the gate in the next system or if one of the ships opened a cyno in a deep SS in the system. These 2 ships then only need to hold ground for a minute and hopefully destroy T3D in that time. Then the super would have to withstand 3 extra minutes of the fleet bashing it before their non-capital friends can assist and 5 minutes before their capital ships assist. (1 and 3 minutes if the destroyer survived and managed to open the cyno)
You also need to sit down and look at other uses of this. What about bomber fleets during various types of battles and fights? What if someone puts it on a gate? You now have an extremely effective barrier to cloaks even entering your system undetected.
You need to consider more than just how you would want to use it. You need to at least look for some unintended consequences and if those unintended consequences are desirable.
For example, putting on on Jita 4-4 and then the guy who blaps transports hoping to get lucky can have more targets…is that what you want?
CCP has stated this. The use of local as intelligence tool and safety tool is unintended, but so far they have not done anything about it and probably won’t.
I don’t think making cloaked ships scannable with any kind of probe is a good idea, at all. It will very seriously interfere with some aspects of the game. I don’t like cloaked AFKers, or AFKers, multiboxers, hackers and botters of any kind to be precise, they are all the same crap to me. But this is not the right way to deal with the problem, too many legit players would be impacted in a very negative and debilitating way.
As for hot drops, there have been lots of ideas floating around to buff cyno inhibitors lately, and personally I would be on board with that if CCP took that route.
Short range anti-bomber counter doesn’t sound too problematic and this is actually one of the main purposes of the module (well, the main purpose are cloaked T3C. The anti-AFK-cloaky is countered well enough by probes already).
But I failed to cover the tons of areas where the module is quite broken.
Bubbles + this would be a huge issue indeed. You could set the module to prevent activation near structures (like smartbomb), but this doesn’t solve all troubles. Not sure if that can be fixed without the module being a mostly pointless gadget.