Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
20
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 11:07:00 -
[91] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:I never know if these threads are trolling
Let me just repeat the same old truths a few more times: AFK cloakers are incapable of doing anything, they are not an issue Any limitation (fuel, cap, probes to find them, etc) you introduce do nothing but cripple legitimate, active play. And also destroy wormhole space.
Summary: go back to highsec I can repeat the same old truths also. Claoking mechanics needs fixing or local being removed. And I would also like add that if you dear sir do not know how to adapt to new mechanics (would the be fuel, cap, probes to find them or any other) thats your problem. Stop playing the game and go away. Thank you. Being "old" but truth means exactly what? Its been true for a very long time that 2 + 2 = 4. Should we accept 2 + 2 = 5 because it may be a newer concept? We could argue that activation of mining lasers requires all defenses to be turned off. Adapt?
Well some filofiser has argued that 1+1 does not equal 2 which then means that 2+2 is not four
But the truth: if a person cloaks up I do not have any way to find him even if I wanted to. Absolutely none. If you can tell me how to find a cloaked person from system X so that he does not need to uncloak let me know.
And this is the ONLY game mechanic in eve that does not have a counter which in comon sense is flawed. Also by thinking all the technical things and advances that we are using in the game. There realy is no reason why there should not be a module that could find cloakers from space.
But as I do not want to be too hars on my end I will settle on other solutions also. One that I have startet to fawor is the removal of local. |
Caliph Muhammed
Carebear Clown Posse
322
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 11:12:00 -
[92] - Quote
Ill tell you how as soon as you explain one part of your argument. In your statement you inject a presupposition that you indeed should be able to find a cloaked ship. The definition of cloaked in game terms is unseen or hidden. The ships that use these mechanisms lost a great deal of comat ability. Why would anyone use the cloaks and endure the drawbacks if cloaked doesn't mean cloaked.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10800
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 11:24:00 -
[93] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:But the truth: if a person cloaks up I do not have any way to find him even if I wanted to. Absolutely none. If you can tell me how to find a cloaked person from system X so that he does not need to uncloak let me know.
And this is the ONLY game mechanic in eve that does not have a counter which in comon sense is flawed. Also by thinking all the technical things and advances that we are using in the game. There realy is no reason why there should not be a module that could find cloakers from space.
But as I do not want to be too hars on my end I will settle on other solutions also. One that I have startet to fawor is the removal of local. Local is it's counter, as cloaking is the counter to local.
There has to be a point where counters stop. You want a module that means you can find cloaked ships. I then want a module that can stop that module finding cloaked ships. You then want a module that stops the module, that stops the module finding cloaked ships etc. etc.
In a game this complicated, not everything is the same and the same idea cannot be applied to everything. At the moment, it is balanced. Due to two mechanic actually breaking each other. In other words, they counter each other in a way that mean neither work perfectly. Balance.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
20
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 11:40:00 -
[94] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:@#91 Ill grant you the wisdom as soon as you explain one part of your argument. In your statement you inject a presupposition that you indeed should be able to find a cloaked ship. The definition of cloaked in game terms is unseen or hidden. The ships that use these mechanisms lose a great deal of combat ability. Why would anyone use the cloaks and endure the drawbacks if cloaked doesn't mean cloaked? While you ponder your answer <- funny
The ships could still be used to the same purposes that they are used at the moment and people would still use them. I would use them. One would just need to think more how to use them rather than just going somewhere, press a button and then go to a shoppingmall for a pack fo cigarettes or swapping to an alt and start grinding isks elsewhere.
Local is not a counter. It just tells theres something there. It does not do anything except tell who are in the same system with you. It does not negate the effects of a claoking module like and ECCM would negate ECM. And yes agreed there needs to point where counters needs to stop but cloaking does not have a counter. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10803
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 12:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Local is not a counter. It just tells theres something there. It does not do anything except tell who are in the same system with you. It does not negate the effects of a claoking module like and ECCM would negate ECM. And yes agreed there needs to point where counters needs to stop but cloaking does not have a counter. Actually cloaking does have counters. You can decloak them and they cannot work while locked and within decloak range. You can of course shoot them too, when they can shoot you funnily enough.
Also if you read the whole thing instead of simply snipping the first line, you'll see why I class local as a counter and visa versa.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
M Lamia
All Web Investigations
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 12:44:00 -
[96] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:I never know if these threads are trolling
Let me just repeat the same old truths a few more times: AFK cloakers are incapable of doing anything, they are not an issue Any limitation (fuel, cap, probes to find them, etc) you introduce do nothing but cripple legitimate, active play. And also destroy wormhole space.
Summary: go back to highsec I can repeat the same old truths also. Claoking mechanics needs fixing or local being removed. And I would also like add that if you dear sir do not know how to adapt to new mechanics (would the be fuel, cap, probes to find them or any other) thats your problem. Stop playing the game and go away. Thank you.
There's a difference between "adapting" and "this playstyle has been trashed because useless self entitled carebears want 100% safety in 0.0 space that they evidently lack the will or manpower to control in against a SINGLE PILOT WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE THERE"
Further still, just saying "well adapt!" in response to suggestions (especially suggestions such as probes) shows extreme ignorance of some of the mechanics. How, for example, does a pilot in wormhole space "adapt" to a probe that shows they are present in the system (when current mechanics mean their presence is unknowable)? There is literally nothing that pilot can do to "adapt" to that change. |
M Lamia
All Web Investigations
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 12:51:00 -
[97] - Quote
Additionally, as for cries of "there is no counter to cloaks!!!"
That's just wrong. Cloaked ships have the "counters" baked into them from the start. Their frailty, their lack of DPS, their very specific roles, etc. That is the counter. When you run into one of these ships, you're handed those things immediately.
The counter doesn't necessarily have to be something that does the exact opposite of or nullifies a specific effect. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
219
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 14:09:00 -
[98] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Local is not a counter. It just tells theres something there. If I'm cloaked and someone knows I'm there I consider the cloak pretty solidly countered.
They might not know where I am well enough to make me go away, but it's hard to see what people are doing in a system when all the intrusion alarms are blaring. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
797
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 14:55:00 -
[99] - Quote
I am amused by the concept that a cloaked ship is dangerous. The moment that cloak went active, any danger shifted to exist only as potential, not actual. It cannot target other objects, and it cannot fire weapons.
The only actual task a cloaked ship can perform is travel and observation.
With local announcing all present like a demented shopping list, any observation is done within the limits that high value items will either be under cover, or completely logged out. All potential targets are warned the moment they load into the system that a threat is present, no need to scan or actually communicate with others. Effort for such actions being made redundant by local freely giving away the information.
Now, some conveniently forget that this game features PvP. And one of the tactical rules is you never fight on your enemies terms, you always follow your strengths. Not everyone blobs.
If you hand out free intel this way, you should expect to see other players fight back by AFK Cloaking. If you hand out free intel this way, you should expect to see other players fight back by Hot Dropping. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Theresa Lamont
Rogue Fleet
55
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:00:00 -
[100] - Quote
Remove cloacks Remove local improve dscan
Problem solved |
|
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
61
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:37:00 -
[101] - Quote
Mag's wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. You believe this is an easy fix, I, CCP and many others do not. CCP knows it's an easy fix, and that there are already a dozen other ways to get the same info (just like you apparently know as well, since you have no response to it). They CODED all those other ways of getting info, and they obviously would know full well how effective they would be at replacing local, just with higher difficulty.
The issue is entirely what caliph here pointed out:
Caliph Muhammed wrote: CCP knows full well how bad local is screwing up EVE. What they don't know/agree on is how many players want a real visceral EVE as opposed to a nanny gamestate and how much that will affect their bottom line.
They simply don't know how many people actually want a game that actually allows real pvp in the pvp zone, vs. how many people are dead set on being nullbears at heart. And sadly, I can't say I do, either.
The gameplay decision is obvious. The business decision is not necessarily that obviouis. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10810
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:57:00 -
[102] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:Mag's wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. You believe this is an easy fix, I, CCP and many others do not. CCP knows it's an easy fix, and that there are already a dozen other ways to get the same info (just like you apparently know as well, since you have no response to it). They CODED all those other ways of getting info, and they obviously would know full well how effective they would be at replacing local, just with higher difficulty. The issue is entirely what caliph here pointed out: Caliph Muhammed wrote: CCP knows full well how bad local is screwing up EVE. What they don't know/agree on is how many players want a real visceral EVE as opposed to a nanny gamestate and how much that will affect their bottom line.
They simply don't know how many people actually want a game that actually allows real pvp in the pvp zone, vs. how many people are dead set on being nullbears at heart. And sadly, I can't say I do, either. The gameplay decision is obvious. The business decision is not necessarily that obviouis. I guess agreeing to disagree, just wasn't good enough.
Knowing something is bad and wanting it to go, doesn't equate to it being an easy fix. Or that CCP think it's an easy fix. They have actually wanted to remove local for years, I guess they just don't like easy fixes then.
Also, I see you again attempted to quantify something to me, that I didn't actually say. Nice job.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
61
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:12:00 -
[103] - Quote
Quote:Also, I see you again attempted to attribute something to me, that I didn't actually say. Nice job. What are you on about? That's a direct quote from you from one page back. |
Theresa Lamont
Rogue Fleet
55
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:24:00 -
[104] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote: The gameplay decision is obvious. The business decision is not necessarily that obviouis.
But it can be. All is needed is vision and courage. I remember reading an interesting quote in Jim Collins`s Good To Great book. It was something like this:
"companies that focus only at making money, on the long run, end up not making any." |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10810
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:55:00 -
[105] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:Quote:Also, I see you again attempted to attribute something to me, that I didn't actually say. Nice job. What are you on about? That's a direct quote from you from one page back. I said you attempted to attribute something, not about anything you quoted.
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:CCP knows it's an easy fix, and that there are already a dozen other ways to get the same info (just like you apparently know as well, since you have no response to it).
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |