Friday, September 25, 2009

The great cloaking debate

A number of people have been talking about cloaks lately, and there seems to be a lot of complaints about them. Interestingly, most of the suggestions for 'improving cloaking' are actually suggestions about how to make it easier to find someone who's cloaked, or to prevent a cloaked ship from actually doing anything.

So from this I can assume that the people who want cloaking changed are the people who have been hurt by cloaked ships, and they don't want to suffer any more.

I think this is just another case of the carebears' true colours coming to light.

15 comments:

  1. I do agree with you that the cloaking debate is primarily about nerfing cloaking.

    But on the other hand, it might be nice to see a little more subtlety involved with cloaking. I like Manasi's discussion in his BLOG on cloaking, and making the cloaker more like a WWII submarine. You can submerge at different depths but only for so long. When you come up ... you're vulnerable. And there are different types of subs with different capabilities etc.

    I always like it when CCP adds more depth or subtlety to game ... so here case in point, why not add a little more umph to cloaking?

    I'm neither here nor their on the current debate, although I lean more to keeping it the way it is EXCEPT that I would limit more the type of ships that can cloak to only specialized ships.

    cheers

    ReplyDelete
  2. My blog never claimed to be improving cloaking, nor did Manai's and nor did Hallanes. Its about balancing them.

    If a ships is cloaking that is not made to cloak it should be able to be found. Covert ops, recons etc are a differnt story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Finally someone sane on this debate!

    I feel the same exact way: cloaking is fine as is. Stop complaining because you were killed by a stealth ship. I think the cooldown times of t2 cov ops cloaks give you plenty of opportunity to fight back. I'd hate to see any of the "ideas" come to pass as the new cloaking mechanics...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to use old-fashioned technology to base arguments on changing cloaking, eg. submarines.

    Why should we create cloaking technology that replicates ancient technology, just so some people can feel better about avoiding cloaked ships.

    Those people who think that need to get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bullshit.

    We have cloakers sitting in our systems 24/7. I don't think they've even killed one of us. I've never been killed by one of them for sure.

    I think it's crap that we can't make a move to get rid of them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I said, you want the rules changed so that you're not bothered by cloaked ships any more. Carebears, that's all you are.

    I'd like the rules changed so people are prevented from being carebears, and I think that's a far more reasonable request than to change cloaking rules.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The reasons for wanting a change to cloaking have more to do with making players PLAY than anything else. I support the idea that a cloak not be a 100% foolproof hideaway unless you are there to (at least occasionally) actively "refresh" it however that may need to be done (warping, clicking a module, etc.) And I'm no effin carebear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My only wish and desire for cloaking changes is that ships that are not meant to be cloaky types (you folks in your cloaking mission ravens) have a chance of being discovered. If you're flying a Helios, no, you should not be discoverable with your cloak on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The reasons for wanting to change to cloaking have more to do with making players PLAY than anything else."

    That's where I don't agree with the change...this is a game...I don't think we should be MAKING anyone do anything they don't want to do.

    I personally have no problem with the way cloaks work right now. :)

    /me ponders whether he wants to post about it ro not

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cyberin, I can't understand how you can argue against making people *play* the game.

    There are plenty of other lines of argument against changing cloaking, but that simply isn't one of them. Requiring people to play the game, so that they can have an effect on it, is patently obvious.

    If you don't want to play the game (i.e. sit at your computer and do stuff in space) changing cloaking certainly won't *make* you play the game. You can still get up and wander off.

    You just wouldn't be playing any more.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good thoughts but just so you know I fly covert ops, bombers, recons of 3 of the 4 races.

    @ kitsumi
    I have bombed fleets and been eyes for many more, to say I am a carebear implies disrespect, which not knowing you well, tempts me to become grumpy, none the less, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt about that.

    @ Alexia... come up with a better analogy if you don't like the sub one...it was to serve a point is all :)

    I am not a industry guy who gets ganked by stealth ships as a matter of fact I've never been hit by any cloaked ships other than a bomber. The mechanic is broken offering unlimted upside (invulnerability) with no downside, and that is not how the game mechanics generally work. I do see the need to cloak a mission raven, but it should come with some serious drawbacks ( which it doesn't right now)

    Balance, in my opinion has both positive AND negative, with few exceptions (covert ops recons etc...)

    ~Respectfully ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. 100% spot on with your post. I'm so tired of the wine associated with cloaking. If you can't deal with it, STFU and go play another game.

    While there may be a few things you could slightly tweak, what most suggest is down right retarded. The scary part is that if enough carebears bitch about it CCP will likely listen and muck it up for the rest of us. The squeeky wheel always gets the grease...

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's a sad truth you speak of, Nick.

    But what could make you feel a little happier is that I've added your blog to www.evebloggers.com :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. LOL. This again?

    Cloak is a cloak is a cloak, I dunno why some people have to balance anything tbh.

    As for the WWII sub, yeah lets not go retarded. Modern subs can stay under for EVER, there is no limit bar the one of provisions and as Eve is set 20 odd thousand years in the future and we all supposedly live in pods then we should, should we wish to use pathetic analogies to real life, be able to stay cloaked for several decades.

    As a renowned cloaker, Ushra'Khan, I can happily state that nothing needs balancing. A ship that flies with a cloak that is not covert already has a ghastly lock time and most, though not all have to drop a gun or somesuch to use one. This seriously effects any cloaky HACs out there.

    If you really must get knickers in twists over the cloaker who is afk in your system then make the module turn off after 3 hours or something.

    It won't however make any difference to anything in the long run.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.