|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Samuel Zelik
D.A.R.K Academy
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
63
   |
Posted - 2013.10.24 04:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Didn't read the all the posts, but got the gist of what has been covered. I'm not going to argue numbers, but I will provide examples.
I don't think Cloaks should ever provide full transparency; I've played other games with full cloaks and they are plain annoying (not to mention OP). I think there should be a noticeable difference between being stationary and moving; as an example, something like 80% transparency stationary and 60% transparency mobile.
I think most of us can agree that performing a hostile action (ie: not climbing a ladder) and taking damage should deactivate the cloak.
I also think it's a good idea to be a module that has a cool-down period.
I think what cloaks are going to come down to is a dispute between active scanners and profile dampening. I don't think cloaks should reduce profile significantly, if at all. I don't think using an AS should cause a de-cloak like taking damage would. I do think if a person has a cloak, is scanned and their profile isn't low enough, they should show up on radar, but the cloak would remain activated OR the cloak would remain active and cause some kind of disruption/ scanner error and the cloaked merc would only appear on the original AS user's radar (preferably, I like the former; would take more skill to use cloaks & feels more risk/reward-ish).
Using profile to balance cloaks would mean Medium frames wouldn't be able to successfully use the cloak around higher level scanners, and having both profile dampening and cloak skills would take up SP and slots; namely slots would be sacrificed to successfully dodge scanners and use the cloak simultaneously. The only potential problem I see is snipers, but there's not really something I can think of to stop snipers from being snipers; I do think the scan precision skill/modules would be able to balance out the cloaks and profile dampening, though. |
Samuel Zelik
D.A.R.K Academy
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
63
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 04:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:I think this is a good compromise, make it directional, make it immobilize you, make it something you have to channel. This should be acceptable even with the simple minded base of AR514 who can't fathom the idea of competition, as this would make the cloak leaning towards a more defensive role than an offensive role. Another option, is to have it be 360 degree cloaking, but it removes your vision as well, you essentially get a gray screen until you release it. The reason why it effects your vision is because the same wavelengths that pass around you to prevent the enemy from seeing you also means that those wavelengths aren't hitting the enemy either, making you blind.
I don't think the immobilization is a good idea, then essentially it would be Sniper heaven because only Snipers and the occasional Nova-masters would be using it.
The loss of vision doesn't seem that viable because stray bullets would make the cloak utterly useless, not to mention there's no reason the cloak should be a full cloak.
I still stand that the transparency should be adjusted depending on movements to something like: 80% transparency stationary, 60% walking/jogging, 40% sprinting. |
|
|
| |
|