Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
206
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 19:21:00 -
[91] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote:What the nerf cloaking crowd needs to do is start a thread on cyno mass limits. That seems to be the actual issue for you guys I believe the only change to a cyno that is needed, is to expose the system to risk in exchange for convenience. By that, I mean have a spool up where no ships can travel, but it is highly visible on local grid. No beacon would appear on the overview until the spool up completes, so ships able to travel happens when the beacon appears. Have this last anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute. The result, is a cyno can be used very much like it currently is, with the exception that if you do it on grid to another player they can see it and have time to react. In the version where PvE ships are as formidable as their stealthed opponents, I expect this should allow the PvE ship enough time to chop up the cyno boat into small pieces, and serve it as stir fry. My basic premise is that fights should happen between PvE and stealthed craft, which means the PvE must have a reasonable expectation that they can win, IF they make the effort.
Wouldn't this result in an inability to drop fleets on each other? Much more so in TiDi when people will have even MORE time to react? I agree that force projection needs to be changed, but I'm not convinced doing it on they cyno end is a good idea. IMO jumping mechanics themselves need to be changed...a ship jumping to a cyno shouldn't just teleport there, it should actually have a degree of travel time based on the distance. But that would probably require a complete rewrite of jump code and I'm not sure it's even possible given the fact that different systems are on different nodes . |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1282
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 19:29:00 -
[92] - Quote
wouldnt increasing travel time also give ppl 'even more time to react' as well? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
44
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:10:00 -
[93] - Quote
My two cents
If a RL stealth bomber flies by right next to me, I'll still SEE it. Why not make the shimmer effect viewable by any player on grid? I can barely see my own ship on my screen when it's cloaked. Why not let a determined player visually find a cloaked ship that way? No probes needed, no POS mods, just let everyone see my ship cloaked the same way I do.
Also means that if I'm trying to gather intel, I'm at risk (risk vs. reward). If I'm just afk, then odds are highly in favor of no one randomly landing at my safe spot grid, or picking me out of the stars in a trillion cubic meters of virtual space
Ced Cedric
|
Johnson Dragoon
Journey.
24
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:20:00 -
[94] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:My two cents
If a RL stealth bomber flies by right next to me, I'll still SEE it. Why not make the shimmer effect viewable by any player on grid? I can barely see my own ship on my screen when it's cloaked. Why not let a determined player visually find a cloaked ship that way? No probes needed, no POS mods, just let everyone see my ship cloaked the same way I do.
Also means that if I'm trying to gather intel, I'm at risk (risk vs. reward). If I'm just afk, then odds are highly in favor of no one randomly landing at my safe spot grid, or picking me out of the stars in a trillion cubic meters of virtual space
Ced
Do you not know how much risk cov-ops ships come under attempting to get from what one system to another? Something people seem to fail to understand in this thread, they make claim that cov-ops ships are risk free intel or combat. That is total bull, and they never, I mean NEVER flew cov-ops able ships. First, cov-ops able ships are nerfed to all hell, they have no combat ability outside their designated targets. Stealth bomber for example primary targets are large slow moving targets. Targets that can't escape quickly because those bombs do have a travel time.
All cov-ops ships take a massive nerf to combat abilities due to their ability to fit a cov-ops, so when traveling through gates, if you don't plan everything down to the wire, you are going to get destroyed, and all that isk lost.
You want to add a timer to my cloak? Fine, give me the ability to cloak while being locked! You want to add fuel to my cloak? Fine, make it so that when I get too close to objects, I no longer uncloak. You want to make probes hunt down my cloaked ship? Fine, then buff all my cov-ops combat ships so that they can compete on the same level as other ships. You want to add an AFK timer to the game: Fine, as long as you do the same for those that are docked, and those that are docked, fail the AFK timer, you get kicked out into space to be logged off. |
Egravant Alduin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
If you can't find someone hide yourself also.Cloaking is a great mechanic and should stay as it is . |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4073
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:24:00 -
[96] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote:What the nerf cloaking crowd needs to do is start a thread on cyno mass limits. That seems to be the actual issue for you guys I believe the only change to a cyno that is needed, is to expose the system to risk in exchange for convenience. By that, I mean have a spool up where no ships can travel, but it is highly visible on local grid. No beacon would appear on the overview until the spool up completes, so ships able to travel happens when the beacon appears. Have this last anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute. The result, is a cyno can be used very much like it currently is, with the exception that if you do it on grid to another player they can see it and have time to react. In the version where PvE ships are as formidable as their stealthed opponents, I expect this should allow the PvE ship enough time to chop up the cyno boat into small pieces, and serve it as stir fry. My basic premise is that fights should happen between PvE and stealthed craft, which means the PvE must have a reasonable expectation that they can win, IF they make the effort. Wouldn't this result in an inability to drop fleets on each other? Much more so in TiDi when people will have even MORE time to react? I agree that force projection needs to be changed, but I'm not convinced doing it on they cyno end is a good idea. IMO jumping mechanics themselves need to be changed...a ship jumping to a cyno shouldn't just teleport there, it should actually have a degree of travel time based on the distance. But that would probably require a complete rewrite of jump code and I'm not sure it's even possible given the fact that different systems are on different nodes .
I think this can be adjusted a couple of ways.
It could be determined that a recon ship is exempt from needing a spool up time, or can simply precharge this off grid ahead of time.
It could be that a number of ships working together can reduce the spool up to zero, following the same logic that they can pool their power together.
Either way, a single T1 ship by itself should not be able to shoulder this degree of leverage, and only the recon ships should wield this ability solo at all. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:28:00 -
[97] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:and lose nothing from evading. On the contrary, they are losing time they could spend ratting. hence these threads. To the null bear, evading is inadequate.
They lose the time ratting, mining, whatever, regardless. Even with a combat fleet present on grid the non-combat ship should flee (an argument can be made against this for ratting) as thier contribution to combat is superflourous and probably minimal and they are generally a high value soft target.
The Nullbear isnt working alone. His alliance has cleared that space. Why should their efforts suddenly be worthless because its easier to maintain than break into in the first place? EVE is supposed to be a game of consequences. Must those consequences only be positive when they favor aggressive direct combat pilots? The consequence of capturing space, guarding and securing it is that it becomes safe. Your industry should profit from those efforts. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2066
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
LOOOOOOOL RANDOMALT wrote:Dragoon..... im sorry, you are the worst troll ive ever seen, please for the life of you post something you havent posted before. a reward? really thats your excuse? my suggestions leave those aspects in tacked.
Danika. please leave its clear you dont want to be apart of the conversation.
I have made my case now give me something real i can see logic in. is there noone out there with a legitimate thesis against the balancing of cloaking? are there none amung us.
You're one of those awesome guys who defines a conversation as a reinforced echo box with no dissent, right?
AFK cloaking is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. In order for an AFK cloaker to actually do anything he would have to invest hours, possibly days, possibly more, in order to have an effect on the game. The vast majority of that time is nothing but opportunity cost.
Besides which, there are legitimate purposes to cloaking up and taking a walk. Like -- cloaking up and taking a walk. This is a part of the game. You've already made the sacrifice of fitting a cloak, you might as well get some use out of it. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 20:38:00 -
[99] - Quote
The afk is fine. The cloak that makes you so safe you are assured to still be in space when you come back despite the combined efforts of active players to the contrary is not.
Confident is fine--- it should be difficult to find you, enough for you to afk as a calculated risk for a given time period. Absolutely safe? Safer than sitting in a POS? Even with people actively hunting? That is broken. |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4073
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:05:00 -
[100] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:The afk is fine. The cloak that makes you so safe you are assured to still be in space when you come back despite the combined efforts of active players to the contrary is not.
Confident is fine--- it should be difficult to find you, enough for you to afk as a calculated risk for a given time period. Absolutely safe? Safer than sitting in a POS? Even with people actively hunting? That is broken. Broken? Perhaps.
I would say this is not in conflict with the view that it is also balanced.
Something can be broken, but also be effectively balanced. The problem is often that it takes something equally broken in order to balance it.
I feel that is what we have here, two broken systems, both effectively an absolute in their respective areas. Since nothing can overcome an absolute effect, where these two overlap results in a stalemate. It is resolved frequently by players logging off, or going AFK.
I feel these are left in place because no clear solution exists to them, and they both define extreme limits of intel.
You can ALWAYS see pilots in a system with local. You can NEVER scan down a cloaked vessel.
I believe this absolute nature of their mechanic is what ties them together, so they cannot be handled separately. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:24:00 -
[101] - Quote
That argument only works if you accept local is broken. It isnt.
As has been discussed, even if it was removed this moment, it would have to be replaced with at least a system that gave an accurate count of ships in system. This would result in the exact same behavior we have now. Those coming in would announce themselves, those leaving would announce that, and the end result would probably be an even more scrutinized grasp of who is in system than local provides now with only an eye needed on the system population count.
So long as entire professions are built around ships that must rely on evasion to have a chance at survival then some form of local or its equivalent must exist or it becomes impossible to secure K-space to any degree at all. That is fine for shooters where the only consequence is reputation and stats, but EVE is all about meaningful consequences, so legitimate defensive tactics must be available and viable. The rules of k-space require something like local to work at all, except where CONCORD does the securing for you.
Cloaks are broken because any ship in open space should be huntable. Docked or in a POS isnt in open space, yet a cloaked ship is safer than one in a POS.
Cloaks do not balance local. Local is balanced on its own, only player effort makes it powerful, both in proactively clearing systems of hostiles and in getting clear so that the combat wings can do that. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1284
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:26:00 -
[102] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: The consequence of capturing space, guarding and securing it is that it becomes safe. Your industry should profit from those efforts.
What are u even saying? What guarding and securing? u show me an alliance that actively guards and secures its space and ill show u an alliance that has no troubles with cloakers and is quite capable of countering cyno's.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1284
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:29:00 -
[103] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Cloaks are broken because any ship in open space should be huntable. Docked or in a POS isnt in open space, yet a cloaked ship is safer than one in a POS.
Cloaks do not balance local. Local is balanced on its own, only player effort makes it powerful, both in proactively clearing systems of hostiles and in getting clear so that the combat wings can do that.
these arguments only work if u assume cloaks are broken and dnt balance local which they arent and they do EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:30:00 -
[104] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: The consequence of capturing space, guarding and securing it is that it becomes safe. Your industry should profit from those efforts.
What are u even saying? What guarding and securing? u show me an alliance that actively guards and secures its space and ill show u an alliance that has no troubles with cloakers and is quite capable of countering cyno's.
And that very same alliance will suspend all PvE except bait in the affected systems until they are dealt with.
No one is immune to the broken effects of a cloak. There are ways to mitigate it, but that does not stop it crom being a broken mechanic. Its just not as bad as those screaming about afk campers want to claim. |
Rahh Serves
Collective Industrial Confederation Silent Forge
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:31:00 -
[105] - Quote
isnt the only reason cloakys are feared in 0.0 sapce that the could use a cyno and hotdrop you i dont fear a little cloaky but the fleet behind them in wh space cloakys arent that much of a thread since they cant light a cyno and hotdrop you
most people in this post dont understand the huge difference betwen wh and 0.0 space the cloaky in itself isnt broken the ability to light a cyno is broken |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4073
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:34:00 -
[106] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:That argument only works if you accept local is broken. It isnt.
As has been discussed, even if it was removed this moment, it would have to be replaced with at least a system that gave an accurate count of ships in system. I need to stop what you are saying there.
I dispute your conclusion, quoted above. I do not believe that an accurate count of ships in a system should ever be a certainty.
I believe that a degree of doubt, and uncertainty, should dominate all considerations regarding intel, as this should be an opposed effort under many scenarios.
I feel the very expectation that you should casually be aware of another pilot's presence, even if you could not define it beyond being aware another was present, is too much to expect.
There should always be the expectation that someone may have gone beyond your ability to detect, and is lurking either beyond your sensor's range or even the hardware's ability to detect at all.
I do not believe intel should be a freely available commodity. I believe it needs to be earned, and with that earning should always come the doubt that maybe someone paid a higher price than you, just so you would not know they were present.
I feel you can hedge your bets, but always remember you are gambling. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4074
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
Rahh Serves wrote:isnt the only reason cloakys are feared in 0.0 sapce that the could use a cyno and hotdrop you i dont fear a little cloaky but the fleet behind them in wh space cloakys arent that much of a thread since they cant light a cyno and hotdrop you
most people in this post dont understand the huge difference betwen wh and 0.0 space the cloaky in itself isnt broken the ability to light a cyno is broken I would reply that this is a sub-aspect of the issue, left in the game because without it the warning provided by local would defeat any significant number of ships trying to catch a non consensual target.
To quote myself from the past: Hot Dropping: Bridging is intended to bypass reinforced blockades and travel time. Here, it has been fine tuned to avoid advertising the presence of a fleet to the free intel tool as well by delaying the easily recognizable population spike till the last possible moment. The intention is to deny the warning local provides, although it still reports the presence of the cyno boat enough to be associated with AFK Cloaking instead. Quite simply, while PvE pilots would never resume regular activities with a hostile fleet present, they are sometimes willing to gamble over whether a cloaked vessel represents that level of threat at a given time.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1284
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:37:00 -
[108] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: No one is immune to the broken effects of a cloak. There are ways to mitigate it, but that does not stop it crom being a broken mechanic. Its just not as bad as those screaming about afk campers want to claim.
no one is immune to the broken effects of local. there are ways to mitigate it (afk cloaking), but that does not stop it from being a broken mechanic. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1396
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 21:50:00 -
[109] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: Cloaks do not balance local. Local is balanced on its own, only player effort makes it powerful, both in proactively clearing systems of hostiles and in getting clear so that the combat wings can do that.
There is no effort in seeing one person jumping in local and warping to safety. No trolling please |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:08:00 -
[110] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: Cloaks do not balance local. Local is balanced on its own, only player effort makes it powerful, both in proactively clearing systems of hostiles and in getting clear so that the combat wings can do that.
There is no effort in seeing one person jumping in local and warping to safety.
So the hundreds of manhours spent clearing the space and camping the gates to keep it clear should be worthless?
Not every iota of effort bent to a task need be your personal effort. This is called cooperative play, or group effort. |
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:11:00 -
[111] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: No one is immune to the broken effects of a cloak. There are ways to mitigate it, but that does not stop it crom being a broken mechanic. Its just not as bad as those screaming about afk campers want to claim.
no one is immune to the broken effects of local. there are ways to mitigate it (afk cloaking), but that does not stop it from being a broken mechanic.
AFK cloaking is a manifestation of the broken nature of cloaks that also exploits the efforts of your enemy in clearing space. It is not a counter to local, it's just broken.
If you wanted to hire thousands of newbies to flood through gates and muck around in enemy space that would be countering local. It's exactly what makes local in high sec useless. Exploiting broken cloak mechanics to passively eliminate the efforts of hundreds is just broken. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1285
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:15:00 -
[112] - Quote
clearing space and camping gates is effort well spent at preventing fleets get into ur space, but quite clearly they are insufficient for preventing infiltrators, much like in RL.
to prevent infiltration and raids u actively protect ur systems behind ur own lines. groups that do that suffer much less from cloakers. it makes complete sense.
u seem to be trying to suggest that because u have claimed territory it should be immune to infiltration and raids. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:16:00 -
[113] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:That argument only works if you accept local is broken. It isnt.
As has been discussed, even if it was removed this moment, it would have to be replaced with at least a system that gave an accurate count of ships in system. I need to stop what you are saying there. I dispute your conclusion, quoted above. I do not believe that an accurate count of ships in a system should ever be a certainty. I believe that a degree of doubt, and uncertainty, should dominate all considerations regarding intel, as this should be an opposed effort under many scenarios. I feel the very expectation that you should casually be aware of another pilot's presence, even if you could not define it beyond being aware another was present, is too much to expect. There should always be the expectation that someone may have gone beyond your ability to detect, and is lurking either beyond your sensor's range or even the hardware's ability to detect at all. I do not believe intel should be a freely available commodity. I believe it needs to be earned, and with that earning should always come the doubt that maybe someone paid a higher price than you, just so you would not know they were present. I feel you can hedge your bets, but always remember you are gambling.
You wind up with 2 possibilities here.
First, the only ships capable of escaping detection are rare, expensive and inoffensive. So long as entire ship lines are created that rely on evasion for defense then they must have the capability to actually rely on that defense. That pilot doing everything properly should be assured that he can indeed evade, or else that ship and any like it are useless.
Second, all consequences to losing your ship are removed from the game. If choices are to be meaningful, there must be a chance for success. So long as ships are required to evade or die with no realistic middle ground, evasion must remain not only viable, but probable---just short of outright assured. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
507
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:20:00 -
[114] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:clearing space and camping gates is effort well spent at preventing fleets get into ur space, but quite clearly they are insufficient for preventing infiltrators, much like in RL. to prevent infiltration and raids u actively protect ur systems behind ur own lines. groups that do that suffer much less from cloakers. it makes complete sense. u seem to be trying to suggest that because u have claimed territory it should be immune to infiltration and raids. Quote:AFK cloaking is a manifestation of the broken nature of cloaks that also exploits the efforts of your enemy in clearing space. It is not a counter to local, it's just broken. which goes to show u dnt know what ur talking about. afk cloaking is deliberately employed as a counter to local. it exploits the LACK of efforts your enemy takes in protecting its own space
Not at all. However, counter infiltration needs to have a chance at success. Currently it does not, because of broken cloaks. I don't hold the belief that they should not be effective at infiltration and hunting, just that they be as subject to counter tactics as everyone else.
No one signs up to play prey. Bears don't owe you kills for the privilege of playing your PvP game. |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1399
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Cloak fitted ships die all the time, so I don't understand how you can say there is no counter No trolling please |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4074
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:26:00 -
[116] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote: Cloaks do not balance local. Local is balanced on its own, only player effort makes it powerful, both in proactively clearing systems of hostiles and in getting clear so that the combat wings can do that.
There is no effort in seeing one person jumping in local and warping to safety. So the hundreds of manhours spent clearing the space and camping the gates to keep it clear should be worthless? Not every iota of effort bent to a task need be your personal effort. This is called cooperative play, or group effort. Local would exist regardless of those man hours.
I would point out, that it is not simply your efforts in the past, which makes local effective. Those man hours simply give you an advantage over your range, since you effectively base yourself out of a POS or outpost controlled by your alliance. A mass effort placed those structures, and removed any which would support opposition.
Your range, and the comparatively much greater range demanded of your opponents, gives your gatecamps more influence over the region, as hostile forces cannot restock / resupply without crossing back over these bottlenecks.
All local does, ever, is report the success or failure of these efforts. Something that intel should be responsible for, in my opinion.
Local chat is taking over the job of local system surveillance, by giving everyone an absolute list of all present in the system. It is balanced by cloaked ships being impossible to scan down once in the system itself. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4074
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:32:00 -
[117] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You wind up with 2 possibilities here.
First, the only ships capable of escaping detection are rare, expensive and inoffensive. So long as entire ship lines are created that rely on evasion for defense then they must have the capability to actually rely on that defense. That pilot doing everything properly should be assured that he can indeed evade, or else that ship and any like it are useless.
Second, all consequences to losing your ship are removed from the game. If choices are to be meaningful, there must be a chance for success. So long as ships are required to evade or die with no realistic middle ground, evasion must remain not only viable, but probable---just short of outright assured. The very concept of ship lines that rely on evasion for defense is a distinct problem.
It is one thing to choose and fit a ship with this expectation. I believe that is a choice, which deserves whatever consequences follow. It is quite another to take an entire line, and condemn it to perpetual paranoia that a hostile anything could arrive, and destroy it without hope of survival, unless they avoided all possible contact.
I believe ships should not be required to evade by design.
Between local and cloaking, we are running into entirely predictable stalemates as a result of this. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4074
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:38:00 -
[118] - Quote
I have to isolate and jump all over this, since it epitomizes the very point I am arguing. I respect you Mike, so I hope you do not feel that I am persecuting you with so many replies.
Mike Voidstar wrote:No one signs up to play prey. Bears don't owe you kills for the privilege of playing your PvP game. I want bears to be able to fight back.
I do not expect them to stand toe to toe with full fledged PvP ships, or go on roams. I do expect them to be able to defend themselves, with a reasonable expectation they can win fights against covert type vessels.
I understand the game is not configured to allow this. That is exactly my point.
Rather than limit cloaking, let's remove the need to evade in the first place.
Strike at the heart of the issue, and kill the root of the problem. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1286
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Not at all. However, counter infiltration needs to have a chance at success. Currently it does not, because of broken cloaks. I don't hold the belief that they should not be effective at infiltration and hunting, just that they be as subject to counter tactics as everyone else.
No one signs up to play prey. Bears don't owe you kills for the privilege of playing your PvP game.
and at the same time raids need a chance of success. They are just as ineffective as counter infiltration because of local (some attempts made by cloakers are foiled, some bears still die to cloakers). it should be subject to counter tactics like everything else.
no, bears dnt owe anyone kills. and no one owes bears risk free monies for them and their alliance either.
im trying to get u to see that cloaking and local are opposties, ying and yang. for every argument against cloaking there is a reflecting argument against local. they are both undesirable in their current state, and both counter eachother.
the bear can see any incoming attack because of local. so the cloaker goes afk and uses local against the bear. The result is that the bear cannot rat without risking his stuff, but at the same time he can take steps to bait the cloaker. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1399
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 22:46:00 -
[120] - Quote
Changing the very essence of wormhole simply to appease a few upset bears shows the extreme lack of actual thinking as it pertains to nerfing cloaks. No trolling please |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |