Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 15:27:14 -
[7411] - Quote
Brokk For a cloak charge system aligned with the incoming command bursts:
The afk cloaky camper would still provide content unless within the 5 hour window after down-time.
You log on 5+ hours after the server goes back online. See a single neut/red in system...so you can try to probe it down. It may have uncloaked. Only one way to find out for sure (dscan only shows ships in dscan range - include potential deep safes and systems are too large for dscan). Successful/unsuccessful - does not matter. The probing attempt is content in itself.
The downside from an afk cloaky camping perspective is simply that you cannot afk cloaky camp in complete security unless you know for certain you can be active once in the next 5 hours. So the number of cloaky campers will decrease (people will not always know if they can be active again in the given time frame, so will have to log for complete security).
The buff is of course the counter counter-play. Pretend to be decloaked after 5 hours and light a cyno when the probbing fleet warps to you. This alone could give more kills than the biweekly kill frequency ratter habituation requires.
But I would not expect afk cloaky campers to know their own good. The urge to have absolute control over variables runs strong in that playing-style.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
850
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 04:58:47 -
[7412] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: All I have said throughout this thread is so long as local exists we need AFK cloaking.
Yea, local is due for an overhaul. I'm with ya on that one. I'd rather hear how you envision a better local / combo than explaining why things are as they are now. Charges for cloaks don't break anything but they also don't really fix much... a potential encounter when a cloaker forgets to retrigger is kinda like hoping the blops forgot to load fuel. Hilarious for sure- ayyy but you get the picture.
The possibility for mistakes to be made is always nice but we may have to think a little further and allow for the concept that developers will need to expand their programming. Substantial changes that address both local and cloaking.
My guess would be that Jerghul doesn't dare propose anything outrageous after the last load of flak he got for user-configurable stargates- an idea he borrowed from rolling wormholes. He tries to be cautious and conservative- whereas a better fix would indeed need to go beyond one-minute-of-coding solutions.
So .... what did you have in mind? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18364
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 05:33:33 -
[7413] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:baltec1 wrote: All I have said throughout this thread is so long as local exists we need AFK cloaking.
Yea, local is due for an overhaul. I'm with ya on that one. I'd rather hear how you envision a better local / combo than explaining why things are as they are now. Charges for cloaks don't break anything but they also don't really fix much... a potential encounter when a cloaker forgets to retrigger is kinda like hoping the blops forgot to load fuel. Hilarious for sure- ayyy but you get the picture. The possibility for mistakes to be made is always nice but we may have to think a little further and allow for the concept that developers will need to expand their programming. Substantial changes that address both local and cloaking. My guess would be that Jerghul doesn't dare propose anything outrageous after the last load of flak he got for user-configurable stargates- an idea he borrowed from rolling wormholes. He tries to be cautious and conservative- whereas a better fix would indeed need to go beyond one-minute-of-coding solutions. So .... what did you have in mind?
The problem is local, AFK cloaking only works in null and only exists to get around local so whatever change that happens needs to happen to local. The only reason AFK cloaking works is because you can see a name in local, without that you would have no idea they were even there |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5424
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 07:21:22 -
[7414] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:baltec1 wrote: All I have said throughout this thread is so long as local exists we need AFK cloaking.
Yea, local is due for an overhaul. I'm with ya on that one. I'd rather hear how you envision a better local / combo than explaining why things are as they are now. Charges for cloaks don't break anything but they also don't really fix much... a potential encounter when a cloaker forgets to retrigger is kinda like hoping the blops forgot to load fuel. Hilarious for sure- ayyy but you get the picture. The possibility for mistakes to be made is always nice but we may have to think a little further and allow for the concept that developers will need to expand their programming. Substantial changes that address both local and cloaking. My guess would be that Jerghul doesn't dare propose anything outrageous after the last load of flak he got for user-configurable stargates- an idea he borrowed from rolling wormholes. He tries to be cautious and conservative- whereas a better fix would indeed need to go beyond one-minute-of-coding solutions. So .... what did you have in mind? The problem is local, AFK cloaking only works in null and only exists to get around local so whatever change that happens needs to happen to local. The only reason AFK cloaking works is because you can see a name in local, without that you would have no idea they were even there
Holy crap...we are having this discussion again.
The changes to local and AFK cloaking should, ideally, happen pretty much at the same time. Local goes, the Observatory Array enters the game...maybe with a brief lag between local going so people have time to set up an intel network, but nothing mroe than that.
I swear to God we had this discussion for like 500 pages in total....but if we weren't being sidetracked by somebody's sock puppet exercise....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 09:40:12 -
[7415] - Quote
Brokk Removing local was the idea borrowed from wormholes. I just though "mkay, what compensation did wormhole dwellers get for that?" Turns out the player ability to manipulate gates is one of the compensations.
I am not a huge fan of either ideas. K-space is k-space. wh-space is worm-hole space. Hybrid variants are not good.
Removing local is an incredibly intrusive way to resolve issues with afk cloaky camping. Removing local may resolve other things of course. But that is a matter for a different thread (one that has 13 posts from about a year ago to be exact).
I am fine with the observation array concept IN ADDITION to adding cloak charges and would not mind a slight delay on local either. But nothing more than say a 1 second delay.
Ratters have to feel safe to undock. I need them to undock to catch a fraction of them on small gang roams.
A 1 second delay give ratters less reaction time A 3 second delay keeps them docked up
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1112
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 14:17:00 -
[7416] - Quote
Jerghul wrote: Ratters have to feel safe to undock. I need them to undock to catch a fraction of them on small gang roams.
There's your problem. Wrong tool for the job.
While small roaming gangs do catch stuff, you stand a much better chance avoiding intel as a solo or blops hunter. The common enemy to both is local. One second is not enough at all - I don't think you realize how long it takes to find someone in system. Even in a small system of no more than a 14 AU diameter, Its going to take 2-3 d-scans to narrow it down, especially after the anom quantity buff of a year or so ago. Add aligning, warping, and just the general zone-in for each system, and all but the slowest ships are virtually guaranteed a warp out before you can land on them - you would need at least 10 seconds minimum to actually stand a chance at surprising ratters that are paying attention. Add in MJDs, and the fact that carriers and supers can both rat while aligned 100 km off the warp in in any direction, and can just jump out to a beacon at any time, and you get the current zero risk null provided by local.
If you are actually interested in small gang roams being fun again, removing local would be great. Do you not realize that local does 99.99% of the keeping people safe job for them? Suddenly attackers and defenders would have a GAME to play with each other, rather than local spoiling it with perfect intel.
Buff anom income by 100%, remove local. Fixed.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
702
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 14:19:39 -
[7417] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Ratters have to feel safe to undock. I need them to undock to catch a fraction of them on small gang roams.
Why? Why can't they rat in PvP fits while in fleets and on comms, then simply counter any gang that shows up? |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 14:55:32 -
[7418] - Quote
Sonya They could if they would, but they won't.
Not that this would help small gangs much. The idea is not for them to undock with immunity to small gang roams. The idea is that they undock with a sense of security, but with vulnerability to small gang roams.
But sure, mechanisms could be changed to make sure ratters were pvp fit. Rats causing omni damage would be a good start. Or overseers warping off with their personal belongings unless scrammed. Adapt the rats to make sure the optimal rat fit is a very solid pvp fit.
Smarter rats and better bounties to compensate for loss of raw kill numbers. CCP has amassed a lot of experience with that that could be transferred to normal ratting grinds.
In short: Sure CCP could do stuff to make pvp fits optimal ratting fits. But that fails on my "least intrusive" principle.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
702
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 15:31:45 -
[7419] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya They could if they would, but they won't.
Not that this would help small gangs much. The idea is not for them to undock with immunity to small gang roams. The idea is that they undock with a sense of security, but with vulnerability to small gang roams.
But sure, mechanisms could be changed to make sure ratters were pvp fit. Rats causing omni damage would be a good start. Or overseers warping off with their personal belongings unless scrammed. Adapt the rats to make sure the optimal rat fit is a very solid pvp fit.
Smarter rats and better bounties to compensate for loss of raw kill numbers. CCP has amassed a lot of experience with that that could be transferred to normal ratting grinds.
In short: Sure CCP could do stuff to make pvp fits optimal ratting fits. But that fails on my "least intrusive" principle.
Ironically, after hearing what you want I think NS isn't for you. NS is about empire building, not small gang roams, and IMO that is by design. WHs on the other hand are built around small gang roams, and targets are more than plentiful.
Have you ever thought about joining a WH corp? |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 16:48:13 -
[7420] - Quote
Sonya Thank you for sharing! I actually spend a lot of time in wormholes. Drunk driving in Occators without a scout is a favourite past-time of mine. Maybe I could catch myself in a small gang roam...as there never is anyone else around.
All I want is for cloaking modules to be aligned with the new command bursts and have a 5 hour charge capacity.
With all the goodness that would flow from that.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
702
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 16:57:40 -
[7421] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Thank you for sharing! I actually spend a lot of time in wormholes. Drunk driving in Occators without a scout is a favourite past-time of mine. Maybe I could catch myself in a small gang roam...as there never is anyone else around.
All I want is for cloaking modules to be aligned with the new command bursts and have a 5 hour charge capacity.
With all the goodness that would flow from that.
I understand what you want. It's not needed, and it would result in less ships in hostile space, which is always a bad thing.
Live in a WH with a dedicated WH corp and you will find a lot of targets. Having a dozen people scanning/scouting at once through WH chains and their ends in LS/NS creates a lot of content. Nearly 100% small group, as you seem to want. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:12:02 -
[7422] - Quote
Sonya Its not about me, sis.
Introducing cloak charges aligned with the command burst charge system would result in more vulnerable ships in hostile space.
The concept is brilliant in its simplicity if I may say so myself.
And I will. Or did. Whatever :-).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
275
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:30:37 -
[7423] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Its not about me, sis.
Introducing cloak charges aligned with the command burst charge system would result in more vulnerable ships in hostile space.
The concept is brilliant in its simplicity if I may say so myself.
And I will. Or did. Whatever :-).
IF CCP thought that was the right fix, they could have implemented that years ago. There's nothing new in the way the new boosting modules work, just the boosting effect is new code.
You are trying to fix the symptoms instead of fixing the whole issue.
Wormholer for life.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5424
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:40:56 -
[7424] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Jerghul wrote: Ratters have to feel safe to undock. I need them to undock to catch a fraction of them on small gang roams.
There's your problem. Wrong tool for the job. While small roaming gangs do catch stuff, you stand a much better chance avoiding intel as a solo or blops hunter. The common enemy to both is local. One second is not enough at all - I don't think you realize how long it takes to find someone in system. Even in a small system of no more than a 14 AU diameter, Its going to take 2-3 d-scans to narrow it down, especially after the anom quantity buff of a year or so ago. Add aligning, warping, and just the general zone-in for each system, and all but the slowest ships are virtually guaranteed a warp out before you can land on them - you would need at least 10 seconds minimum to actually stand a chance at surprising ratters that are paying attention. Add in MJDs, and the fact that carriers and supers can both rat while aligned 100 km off the warp in in any direction, and can just jump out to a beacon at any time, and you get the current zero risk null provided by local. If you are actually interested in small gang roams being fun again, removing local would be great. Do you not realize that local does 99.99% of the keeping people safe job for them? Suddenly attackers and defenders would have a GAME to play with each other, rather than local spoiling it with perfect intel. Buff anom income by 100%, remove local. Fixed.
I made this point way, way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaay back. Back in my old AFK Collection thread.
That, we up the risk by removing local, but also up the reward. Yes, ratters will lose more ships, but they'll have more income to easily offset such losses.
Every bad PvE player nearly crapped themselves over the idea. To them they'd be ganked the second they undocked.
I also made the point that NS ratters who do NOT PvP are not best looked at via the lens of risk aversion, but instead via loss aversion. It is not risk that is the problem, but loss...any loss. This is why they dock up and stay docked up 24/7 even though they know for a fact that the AFK cloaker cannot be at his keyboard the vast majority of the time. It is the slightest prospect of loss that makes them dock up.
Here is an example.
I'm just using simple numbers here, so don't get up on the numbers, they are illustrative.
Suppose you log in and your heart sinks....there is a hostile in local. You sit around and wait a few minutes....and he is still there. So you undock in an interceptor and using an insta-warp and safes d-scan the system. Nothing. You then bring out a probing ship....and again nothing. Crap, most likely and AFK cloaker.
Now you have two choices:
Choice 1: Log off and earn 0 ISK. Choice 2: Get into your lower cost ratting ship (say 250 million ISK, not the blinged out ship and/or carrier) and take a risk of losing your ship with probability 10% or earning 50 million ISK.
Choice 2 has an expected payout of 25 million ISK. Choice one has a payout of 0 with certainty. Or to put it differently, if you ratted and chose option 2 10 times, you'd earn 450 million ISK and lose your ship on the tenth the ratting session netting to 200 million in profit--i.e. the ratter is coming out ahead.
The loss averse player will always chose option 1, not matter what. The problem is one of psychology. To the loss averse person the loss is viewed as more substantial than the potential gains. To the loss averse player the loss of the ship is actually more like loosing 500 million ISK meaning that even with 450 million ISK in ratting income they'd feel they are down 50 million ISK.
So, when the charge is leveled: they want to rat in absolute safety, that is really not too far off the mark, IMO.
For many of these players any loss seems to be unacceptable. For example, suppose we doubled the payoff to anomalies, would they undock? No. Triple? No. Quadruple? No. They simple will not undock if there is a hostile presence even if that presence has been there day-after-day--i.e. they KNOW he is AFK cloaking. Even if you were to deliver 12 PLEX to their ratting account with the proviso that they undock with no local, I highly doubt they'd accept even when they can get an entire year of game time at no RL out of pocket cost to them.
Remove local and provide nothing else to let them see who might be in system with them...they'd **** their pants. It is their innate psychology and no amount of tweaking the payoffs will change that.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
703
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:47:19 -
[7425] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Its not about me, sis.
Introducing cloak charges aligned with the command burst charge system would result in more vulnerable ships in hostile space.
The concept is brilliant in its simplicity if I may say so myself.
And I will. Or did. Whatever :-).
...no. It would result in less ships in space. Less hotdroppers in null are less multi billion ISK ships to kill. The real issue here seems to be your ratters are too scared to undock.
Again, start a ratting fleet and mandate PvP fits and have people on comms when hostiles are in system. One way or another you will get the content you want.
Stop asking for mechanics changes when the issue is player mentality.
Or you know, stop trolling like you have been for a week now (or at least be less obvious about the fact you're trolling). yeah? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5425
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:50:27 -
[7426] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Jerghul wrote:Sonya Its not about me, sis.
Introducing cloak charges aligned with the command burst charge system would result in more vulnerable ships in hostile space.
The concept is brilliant in its simplicity if I may say so myself.
And I will. Or did. Whatever :-). ...no. It would result in less ships in space. Less hotdroppers in null are less multi billion ISK ships to kill. The real issue here seems to be your ratters are too scared to undock.
Exactly, they are loss averse not risk averse and extremely so.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 18:21:16 -
[7427] - Quote
Sonya I am sure some afk cloaky campers lack the emotional, physical, or mental fortitude to maximize their cloaked ship account screen every 5 hours. But they would belong to the minority.
Its nice to see that the fortitude handicapped have found a champion in you!
You should consider real life volunteer work. You obviously have a talent for it.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
703
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 18:40:46 -
[7428] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya I am sure some afk cloaky campers lack the emotional, physical, or mental fortitude to maximize their cloaked ship account screen every 5 hours. But they would belong to the minority.
Its nice to see that the fortitude handicapped have found a champion in you!
You should consider real life volunteer work. You obviously have a talent for it.
I have never once AFK camped anyone, I have only been camped/attempted to be hot dropped, so I can't speak to their thought process. I will defer to your experience.
I only know that ratting in a group in PvP ships while organized on comms makes hot droppers extremely nervous.
I do appreciate that you dive deeper into trolling the more you're called out on your BS. Let's see what you try next
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18365
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 18:59:15 -
[7429] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya I am sure some afk cloaky campers lack the emotional, physical, or mental fortitude to maximize their cloaked ship account screen every 5 hours. But they would belong to the minority.
You cant possibly do that for the week/s required for AFK cloaking to work.
Right now you are demanding the nerfing of the only counter anyone has to local all so you can rat in perfect safety. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 21:08:27 -
[7430] - Quote
Sonya I never said you had. In fact I specifically made it clear you are speaking on behalf of a group that you did not belong to.
Nice charity work for a crippled cause, sis.
Baltec Afk cloaky camping kills content, buddy. I showed you all how it could instead generate content.
We should add my gloating endlessly as a possible downside to aligning cloaks with bust charge system and gaining a 5 hour charge capacity.
It will be nauseating. Even for me.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
loon Mabebu
Green Mining and Industry Manifesto.
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 21:56:21 -
[7431] - Quote
Sense my topic has been locked i guess i will post this here. I do how ever launch a complain that I have to move it to here, there are 360 pages worth of posts here witch means that the chances of this being read are very slim.
Alright one of the biggest issues i have with this game at the moment is cloaked camping.
The reason i have this issue is because you can set up a character and cloak in the system you want to camp, you can then walk away from your monitor and never have to think about it again. They are not in a pos, they are not in a station, they are just out in space so there is no way for anyone to know anything about them. This would not be a problem if they where effected in turn, or actually had to engage in what they where doing. They basically get free pressure for nothing.
That being said i understand that it is a good mechanic in the game, the ability in null sec to be able to bring adm's down in huge. It is a mechanic that is needed so i am not looking for any sort of way to completely shut them down.
So what i propose is that we add a cycle time to all cloaks.
I propose 2 parts to this, part 1 Cloaks start with a minimum cycle time of 1 hour, This is an extremely short amount of time i understand. How ever if you are going to camp a system you should be engaged anyway so 1 hour isn't that bad. Also for those of you in exploration i say that you don't necessarily need 1 hour of time most of the time anyway.
part 2 Have the cloak skill add +20% to the amount of time to the cloak. This results in that when you have cloaking 5 you will in fact have 2 hours before you must re-engage your cycle again after its brief cool off period. This also help those that do need a longer cycle time or to be more effective in a wh.
I bring this forward because I think there should be a chance to catch campers. This does not prevent cloaked camping. It just means that to camp a system in game you must be more active. I believe in part this will provide 2 improvements to the system,
1 it will lessen the ability to be able to adversely effect your enemy when you are no where near the game and don't have to do anything. 2 it provides more of an opportunity for there to be for people to engage one another.
Again this does not remove the mechanic from the game. It leaves it in place. How ever it makes it so you actually have to engage in the game. This also provides opportunities for both sides to better use it. If you have to come back every few hours to re cloak then you might just find a carrier on d-scan and get a bunch of buddies to come kill it. Where as if you are being camped you will be able to occasionally catch people that are afk or having to wait for the reload time.
I know a lot of wh will be mad about this hole subject of a timer. How ever with citadels coming out you can now dock up in a wh. And if you want to remain un-docked you can use a ship that doesn't show up on d-scan. All this does it takes the laziness out of cloaking. Now if you want to watch something you have to move from your spot every 1-2 hours for a mandatory cool down period. This provides and opportunity for a skirmish. It also says that if you want a gank you have to be on top of it. There is no more idly sitting by for hours on end. Now if you want a gank you plan for it. You have things set up. If you need to re cloak you warp to a safe, wait the 30-60 seconds it takes for the reload time and cloak again.
I bring up null sec because people will literally camp an area for 23/7 i needed. It gives pressure for doing nothing other than leaving a toon loged on. IT does not stop people from camping. it does not mean you can't watch someones wh. It simply states you have to be smarter about it. You can decloak and the re cloak at any time. Assuming your cool down period has ended between cycles. So while you might complain, and say that isn't how it should be, i beg to differ. If you look at it realistically in order to cloak it takes a high grade of technology, all tech needs a cool off time no matter where you go. The servers are restarted daily because of this. Not to mention every other active module in the game has a cycle time/charge. I am not asking for charges to be placed on it. Just for it to have a cycle time so that you can't just walk away with no repercussions for being out in space.
If there is a big enough uproar in the wh community why not add a passive effect to all wh to increase cycle time based on the size of the wh. Along that line you could even add in an implant or a drug that would further increase the cycle time. |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
275
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 22:12:43 -
[7432] - Quote
loon Mabebu wrote:Wall of text
So in order to fix this "issue" that only affects a minority of player-base and a limited area of the map, we should break a module that works just fine for 95% of the time? Not to mention add weird extra clauses to make it really complex to code and to understand? How about no. There's nothing new in your idea and it's as bad as all the previous ones.
Currently the intel you get from local and the cloak are both equally broken. If you want to fix one, you NEED to fix the other.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 22:38:50 -
[7433] - Quote
Ioon Hardly wasted.
Some CCP intern spending less than a day reading through this and bulletpointing ideas worth highlighting for this or that interteam meeting....
Not exactly the skin off anyone's teeth and a good learning experience for the budding professional in question.
Wander 1 hour seems ungenerous. 5 hours aligned with the pending command burst system seems nice.
You saw CCP is testing out mining rats with mining rat standing fleets on the test server?
No doubt independent discovery and not something that was suggested around page 340 in this thread. Smarter rats give smarter ratters (if you want ratting ships to be pvp fit, then make rats that suggest that the optimal ratting fit is also a very strong pvp fit).
Omni damage for the win :-).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
709
|
Posted - 2016.10.29 23:28:29 -
[7434] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Ioon Hardly wasted.
Some CCP intern spending less than a day reading through this and bulletpointing ideas worth highlighting for this or that interteam meeting....
Not exactly the skin off anyone's teeth and a good learning experience for the budding professional in question.
Wander 1 hour seems ungenerous. 5 hours aligned with the pending command burst system seems nice.
You saw CCP is testing out mining rats with mining rat standing fleets on the test server?
No doubt independent discovery and not something that was suggested around page 340 in this thread. Smarter rats give smarter ratters (if you want ratting ships to be pvp fit, then make rats that suggest that the optimal ratting fit is also a very strong pvp fit).
Omni damage for the win :-).
one more time, since you haven't answered it yet (and keep trolling instead), name a single time an AFK cloaky ship has killed anyone.
I know we can't link killmails here, so feel free to message it to me.
Or, you know, tell your ratters in null to go back to HS if they are afraid of fighting back! |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5434
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:12:58 -
[7435] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:loon Mabebu wrote:Wall of text So in order to fix this "issue" that only affects a minority of player-base and a limited area of the map, we should break a module that works just fine for 95% of the time? Not to mention add weird extra clauses to make it really complex to code and to understand? How about no. There's nothing new in your idea and it's as bad as all the previous ones. Currently the intel you get from local and the cloak are both equally broken. If you want to fix one, you NEED to fix the other.
Basically what Wander said.
That and my usual objection to this nonsense....why should ATK cloaking players have their game nerfed because you guys can't figure out a way to deal with a guy who isn't at his keyboard?
How many of you are logged in? Have you thought of making a fleet and burning down sanctums together? Safety in numbers after all. If you use ishtars/VNIs have you looked into fitting neuts in the highs? Anyone warps in neut them down and put your drones on them. If they light a cyno, neut anything that jumps in and put your drones on them. If they cyno in alot, everyone should GTFO.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5434
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 06:14:35 -
[7436] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Jerghul wrote:Ioon Hardly wasted.
Some CCP intern spending less than a day reading through this and bulletpointing ideas worth highlighting for this or that interteam meeting....
Not exactly the skin off anyone's teeth and a good learning experience for the budding professional in question.
Wander 1 hour seems ungenerous. 5 hours aligned with the pending command burst system seems nice.
You saw CCP is testing out mining rats with mining rat standing fleets on the test server?
No doubt independent discovery and not something that was suggested around page 340 in this thread. Smarter rats give smarter ratters (if you want ratting ships to be pvp fit, then make rats that suggest that the optimal ratting fit is also a very strong pvp fit).
Omni damage for the win :-). one more time, since you haven't answered it yet (and keep trolling instead), name a single time an AFK cloaky ship has killed anyone. I know we can't link killmails here, so feel free to message it to me. Or, you know, tell your ratters in null to go back to HS if they are afraid of fighting back!
He could post the name, date, etc. so we could find the KM with minimal effort. Unlike the NS ratters who complain here, effort is not a problem for us.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
loon Mabebu
Green Mining and Industry Manifesto.
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 07:41:19 -
[7437] - Quote
I think you guys are missing the note on the cloak timmer. the timer Meryl takes out the lazyness. while it is true an afk player doesn't get a kill there is still presume placed by them being in system. Best anology I can give you. YOU are in a room with a machine that has a gun pointed at your fridge. now the gun is loaded. if you want to eat you need to get in the fridge. how ever the person on the other end of the gun controls it from a computer. you know nothing about them. we there they are even at the computer or not. How ever all they have to do is hit enter to fire it.
All the timer would do is make the robot power down after so long. now if you are active and cloaking the chance of you unloading before the timer is high. especially if you not just trying to troll or bring down adms. in wh this means that every few hours you simply need to decloak for 30/1min based on the refresh timmer. it takes nothing away from you other than being on top of it. It punishes no one. those that do exploration are in and out of cloak sooner than you think. as well as when you decloak you show up on dscan but people still need to probe you down. so unless some one is on dscan contently or you are in a tiny system you can work around. IN wh space I know that people are more up on the dscan how ever look at both sides. it does make it harder just to sit around cloaked, gives more Intel if you are lazy about it, yet unless you are running more than one account and just leaving one screen alone (still afling that toon) you probably are not going to sit looking at that screen cloaked for that long.
If you think that 1,2 hours is not enough please enlighten me on what you actually contribute to the game by being cloaked that long with out declaring anyway.
Again point of reference adding cycle timers will Create more content Allow repurcusions to people afk pilots that are not docked up, tethered or in a pos. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 12:08:44 -
[7438] - Quote
ioon They are not missing the point. They are simply deeply entrenched on the position they hold.
They will abandon the current afk cloaky camping mechanism a few months after CCP pries it out of their cold dead fingers.
They are currently resisting a 5 hour timer that I am speaking of incidentally (the mechanism there is a cloak charge similar to the command burst charges pending) :-).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
276
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 13:46:07 -
[7439] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:ioon They are not missing the point. They are simply deeply entrenched on the position they hold.
They will abandon the current afk cloaky camping mechanism a few months after CCP pries it out of their cold dead fingers.
They are currently resisting a 5 hour timer that I am speaking of incidentally (the mechanism there is a cloak charge similar to the command burst charges pending) :-).
Neither side are willing to compromise, so we are deadlocked until CCP decides on what they want to do, if anything.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:10:00 -
[7440] - Quote
Ratpack lulz. Cloak modules with a 5 hour charge capacity is a pretty extreme compromise.
CCP is going to be far more intrusive.
...Major buff combat buffs to mining fleets combined with npc ratting fleets automatically targetting anyone on grid with low security status...
Before even touching the afk cloaky camping mechanism directly.
Oh the tears will flow.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |