+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: "Butt Cloaking" (/showthread.php?tid=148799)
"Butt Cloaking" - Tunicle - 03-17-2017
We seem to have a number of problems associated with the affectionately known practice of butt cloaking, that are apparently damaging the RP environment. How serious is this problem perceived by the community?
If seriously problematic, and as obviously cloaks are an important dynamic of the game , what solutions to the problem would be appreciated, for example should all attacking RP be uncloaked?
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - sindroms - 03-17-2017
Just to elaborate on the thread, we are currently considering spreading the K'Hara and Nomad ID line of needing to RP while uncloaked before engaging people as a server rule. Though we are looking into your views of this, since this would be a HUGE pvp shift. We are also looking at Devs for possible balance changes to load times if this happens to make cloaks a defensive tool, rather than offensive. This chance would mostly concern caps, of course.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Jayce - 03-17-2017
If you get buttcloaked, you deserve it.
What are cloak disruptors, what are ears, what is MOVING?
Addendum:
What is seeing engagement notices dropped by invisible players?
Wow, now you have 10 seconds to start moving and taking evasive action!
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Thunderer - 03-17-2017
I think that cloaks themselves are a harmful concept, as they reduce interaction and are the tool of "buttcloaking". If I was a dev, I would replace them with something else.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Sombs - 03-17-2017
Ouh, difficult question. I kind of like the idea of splitting the cloaks for battleships into offensive and defensive ones, with the current cloak being the defensive one - give it power drain additional to shield drain.
The offensive cloak should eat 3 or 4 batteries per second and in return not have power drain. So if you want to buttcloak someone, you better do it within a set amount of time instead of waiting 15 minutes. I'd also like to see the offensive cloak having 30 seconds less charging time, so you maybe use it during battle to reposition your battleship. Like, most battleships are effed when the tankier battleship is cruising in. Would be a cool alternative to countercruising.
Of course, that doesn't matter when snubs are CDing, but that's another story.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Epo - 03-17-2017
Quote:If seriously problematic, and as obviously cloaks are an important dynamic of the game , what solutions to the problem would be appreciated, for example should all attacking RP be uncloaked?
In my feeling cloaks are fine as they are. Maybe make cloak disruptors cheaper to prevent people spreading drama on forums when they get buttcloaked. It isn't like there are no Cl disruptors.
In my feeling people just try to find problems where there are not any. Cloaks are fine as they are, don't ruin their surprise element with forcing people to rp while uncloaked. Like, you can easily see how aggressive the statements are, if you *think* that someone *might* want to buttcloak at you, or is in direct proximity, start doing evasive manauvers, in most cases you will be fine, unless they decloak at your front, then it might be more tricky.
All you need is some counter tactics, be it manauvers or cloak disruptor. As simple as that.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Omi - 03-17-2017
There is no feasible way you can enforce a rule like this without it becoming sanction bait. I don't have the patience to spell out why exactly it's a dumb idea in some sort of faux-scenario, but imagine player A decloaks on player B, drops his roleplay, and then sits there waiting for the "required wait period" or whatever until he can shoot. However, the second the Marduk/Valor/Turtle appears on player B's ass, he immediately opens fire. Player A is (or should be) allowed to defend himself at once, and shoots back. The overall situation here is similar to a regular buttcloak anyway - player B will likely die even though in this instance he fires the first shot.
The complication here is that player B could easily file a sanction against player A and unless player A bothered to record every single decloak engage he does, in the logs etc it will look like an open-and-shut case of a rule violation. All you'll be able to see is a /cloak and whatever messages player A drops before the death message, despite him being the one who comes under fire first.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Flash™ - 03-17-2017
Isn't that why Cloak Disruptors exist????
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - SkyNet - 03-17-2017
(03-17-2017, 07:17 PM)sindroms Wrote: ...we are currently considering spreading the K'Hara and Nomad ID line of needing to RP while uncloaked before engaging people as a server rule.
I have seen more butt cloaking Order/Liberty dreads than Marduks. If there should be a change, then it should include all factions and not just nomads.
RE: "Butt Cloaking" - Apollon - 03-17-2017
I have mixed feelings for cloaks, on one hand they are useful and on the other they're not.
One of way solving it -- if necessary -- IMO, is to force people to uncloak at a certain range from the enemy ship 3-5K before engaging it, in case of a hostile pew encounter. The rule wouldn't apply for a non-hostile interaction.
But nonetheless, as mentioned in some posts above, Cloak Disruptors exist. Just like how you have CMs for CDs, you have Cloak Disruptors for Cloaks.