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) |
loon Mabebu
Green Mining and Industry Manifesto.
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 15:38:41 -
[7441] - Quote
Alright, i have still yet to have anyone say how being able to cloak for 5 hours straight benefits the game. This is the reason why i hold to my 1-2 hour time frame. If you can actually give me a valid point for the 5 hours or more i might actually consider it. How ever if the sole purpose for it is to be able to afk undocked and not worry about it i don't agree. With the ability to put posses up in wh space you can be docked with out giving a ton of info away. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 17:46:25 -
[7442] - Quote
Ioon Cloak module charges with a 5 hour charge capacity introduces human error (the premier null-sec content provider).
1. An afk cloaky camper may believe he or she will be back from the pub in time to reload charges into the cloaking module, but screws that up because beer. Afk cloaky camper becomes afk ship in space.
2. It decreases the number of afk cloaky campers somewhat. People unsure if they can be ATK within the next 5 hours might choose to log off instead of risking 1.
3. It creates content even if the afk cloaky camper does not screw up. Players have motive to probe down their system 5 hours 5 minutes after server comes online, 10 hrs 10 minutes etc. The act of probing is content in itself, even if the afk cloaky camper is still cloaked.
4. It gives counter-counterplay. An afk cloaky camper can always allow the cloak to run out, then light a cyno and ambush whoever is in warp to catch him under the illusion he is still afk.
It is by design meant as a change that is as least intrusive as possible while introducing a chance for human error. Perfect play is still perfectly safe.
" 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 - 2016.10.30 20:15:58 -
[7443] - Quote
I can see what you are saying but 5 hours of time. that is a bit excessive isn't it. I mean you can get a decent amount of sleep with in 5 hours. so you can still be fairly afk. The point of changing this is so that it can't be as afk. 5 hours that means total in a day you at least have to decloak 4-5 times. still seems way to much time for me. yes it provides human error but it is still a lot of afk time.
The reason i want it changed has nothing to do with camping a system 24/7. The issue i have is that there is no interaction needed to do so.
another quick thought that just came to mind is maybe instead of a cycle timer why not have a 1 minute prompt. this will show up randomly on your screen. if you don't react with it within 1 minute or so then all active modules are turned off. time frames can be randomized.
requirements for this to happen, undocked, not in a pos, and not changing your current list of commands. The only issue i see with this is that a boting program could easily be created to skirt around it.
Again I will ask sense no one has yet to answer, How does the game benefit from someone being able to cloak for more than 1-2 straight hours? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5435
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 20:21:29 -
[7444] - Quote
loon Mabebu wrote: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. Knowing this would you get in the fridge?
You are not entitled to safety anywhere in the game. And that especially includes NS.
AFK cloaking is the only thing that reduces the efficacy of local as an intel tool. Local is really the only viable intel tool for NS. So local is necessary until other tools for obtaining intel are in the game. Once those tools are in the game, local can go and so will (can) AFK cloaking.
AFK cloaking is a function of local. No local, no AFK cloaking.
"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 20:36:49 -
[7445] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
You are not entitled to safety anywhere in the game. And that especially includes NS.
AFK cloaking is the only thing that reduces the efficacy of local as an intel tool. Local is really the only viable intel tool for NS. So local is necessary until other tools for obtaining intel are in the game. Once those tools are in the game, local can go and so will (can) AFK cloaking.
AFK cloaking is a function of local. No local, no AFK cloaking.
The point is not to make it safer, if at all it will make it less safe. Why players will be more active and will use it more. It doesn't remove it from the game either. You can still cloaky camp you just can't ignore it all day every day. Also where is the danger to the person camping once they get in system. There is virtually none. so they are safe.
Also look at wh space. People still cloaky camp there. There is no local. So That part of your argument is void. People will camp one way or the other.
Again i don't want cloaky camping out of the game. You don't see my saying remove it. I am just saying that if you are going to be undocked in system then you should have to interact with the game. A neutral being docked still provides pressure but there are ways to handle that. There is no handle for it nor is there a risk to it ( out side the initial get into system).
Again how does the eve game benefit from being able to be cloaked for more than 2 hours at a time. Not looking at indivuals or corps or alliance. Over all game play. So far from what i see it removes game play. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3574
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 21:15:12 -
[7446] - Quote
Stalking players and scouting goes on for longer than you realise. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are at their keyboard for the whole day waiting. By putting a limit on it, you hurt players at their keyboard as much as those away from it.
Why put a limit on how long you can cloak when the players who are afraid of afk cloakers are just being melodramatic?
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
loon Mabebu
Green Mining and Industry Manifesto.
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 22:01:10 -
[7447] - Quote
Again a timer doesn't stop that. It just asks that you be smart about it. You look at it as a punishment, when really if you are camping well and at your key board you are going to have safes. places you can go to get away from scan or have an optimal moment to be able to uncloak and reset your timer. It does not make it that complicated. It only says play smarter, removes the laziness of it.
With a charge system you are looking at having to have more in your cargo hold. You are also probably looking at a longer recycle/ reload time. Also if you run out of charges you have to leave the area to get more. This may provide some tactical advantages for the defensive end i agree. How ever do you want to have that added risk/cost. Or would you rather take the chance of being able to briefly have to dodge dscan if you are in a wh, or any where else in space for that matter.
with having the 1-2 hour cycle down time it does nothing besides say hey every couple hours you should probably move to a safe spot and recloak after the brief time for it to recycle.
Someone else brought up the idea of having the cloak take damage over time and eventually burn itself out after so long. I don't personally like this idea, how ever what is the chance of ccp liking it?
here is the thing one way or another there is going to be a limit put down on cloaking. The reason for this is no one is particularly happy with this game mechanic. Why if you get cloaky camped then you get annoyed. ccp is already expressing a point of doing this. The question is do you want something more than a cycle timer to come down? weight your options.
I would be willing to say ok 2-3 hour timer. any more than that doesn't make sense. Not really. If you argue other wise you are just trying to cling to a overly easy set up. It is ment for 1 party to benefit from at a time. in it's current state there is no counter to the pressure that is put down. in hs it doesn't matter as much. in low, null it is huge. in wh you assume someone is there anyway.
With the ability to dock now in wh i don't feel as extended cloaks necessary any more. If you are going to be gone from the game longer than a few hours be smart, either dock, log, or find a place out of dscan. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 23:26:39 -
[7448] - Quote
Ioon Like I said, the least intrusive imaginable.
The 5 hours are taken from command bursts by the following logic:
CCP decided command bursts going on for 5 hours without the need of player input is ok (why 5 instead of 1, 3 , 7 or 9 I dont know).
CCP has more information than I do. If 5 hours afk command bursts is ok, then 5 hours afk cloaky camping is probably ok for the same undefined reasons.
" 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 - 2016.10.30 23:35:13 -
[7449] - Quote
You know it is funny now that i have had some time to think about the hole safety comment. Those people that are fighting for the cloak to not have a timer and wanting the safety and uncounter ability that a cloak provides. You know that while you are cloaked that you can not be seen or found, no matter what system you are in or security of space you may be in. That you can be undocked, not tethered, or in a pos and be completely safe. Anything that you do at that point is because of your choosing.
So explain to me how in eve that is fair? You have complete control and safety to try and ruin other peoples days but they can do nothing in response.
Is this how cloaks where intended ccp? to provide a complete safety net while you have it. to never have a need to come out of it if you don't want to. Even a pos can be taken down. a citadel destroyed, a station seized, yet if you have a cloaked camper in system be it a wh or a sec status system there is nothing that can be done? Yet they get to assert there control over the area in complete safety. One of witch they don't even need to be very active to put down.
if you wish to argue that marketing is completely passive i beg to differ. there are always battles going on. If you are talking about api then you still l have to undock a ship, fly to the planet and pick it up. It does not make sense to have it this way. Some would argue log timers. Yet how does this promote actual game play that is meaningful? It only acts as a frustration. giving small spaces of opportunity semi frequently that can be skirted around and managed effectively makes more sense. All it does it takes away the lazy i don't want to have to worry about it attitude of cloaking. it doesn't stop people from cloaking, or even camping a system for a period of time. It just says if you are going to do this do it with meaning. If you don't want to spend the time to do this then figure something else out. I think most will adapt quite well to a 2 hour timer. If you complain that the system you are in is to small to get out dscan range or something consider a different way to deal with it. Daily raids are a great way to hit systems and achieve the same goals.
|
loon Mabebu
Green Mining and Industry Manifesto.
12
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 23:59:08 -
[7450] - Quote
So you don't like the cycle timer on it then. Ok here is a different one that i can accept, Leave the timer and the charges out of it. How ever you can not light a cyno for a full 60 seconds after coming out of a cloak. That is right, you have to actually either have people already nearby in system to help you or you have to be able to tank in some way for 60 seconds before you can get reinforcements that the other person won't see coming.
I personally would rather have the cycle timer.
crap you could even through in a couple variation with this. No cycle time but you can't hot drop for 60 seconds, or cycle time but you can hot drop instantly. The more i think about this the more i like it. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5440
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 00:21:55 -
[7451] - Quote
loon Mabebu wrote:Again a timer doesn't stop that. It just asks that you be smart about it. You look at it as a punishment, when really if you are camping well and at your key board you are going to have safes. places you can go to get away from scan or have an optimal moment to be able to uncloak and reset your timer. It does not make it that complicated. It only says play smarter, removes the laziness of it.
Why don't you play smarter in response to AFK cloaking? Why are you asking CCP to let you continue to be lazy in your game play and safer?
"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
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3576
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 01:52:58 -
[7452] - Quote
loon Mabebu wrote:So you don't like the cycle timer on it then. Ok here is a different one that i can accept, Leave the timer and the charges out of it. How ever you can not light a cyno for a full 60 seconds after coming out of a cloak. That is right, you have to actually either have people already nearby in system to help you or you have to be able to tank in some way for 60 seconds before you can get reinforcements that the other person won't see coming.
I personally would rather have the cycle timer.
crap you could even through in a couple variation with this. No cycle time but you can't hot drop for 60 seconds, or cycle time but you can hot drop instantly. The more i think about this the more i like it.
This again hurts a lot more than afk cloaking.
Your insistance that various other playstyles need to change so that you don't have to speaks volumes. It'd be shocking if it wasn't already typical of null bears.
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"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 07:26:19 -
[7453] - Quote
Ioon Just set the opportunity cost for cyno blocking arrays to 0 for a less intrusive change that achieves the same result.
" 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 - 2016.10.31 10:52:46 -
[7454] - Quote
loon Mabebu wrote: With the ability to dock now in wh i don't feel as extended cloaks necessary any more. If you are going to be gone from the game longer than a few hours be smart, either dock, log, or find a place out of dscan.
Cloaking in wormhole-space is done because it's the way we hunt and gather intel. Putting limitation on cloak-use would make active gameplay more difficult just so that you can have your carebear-heaven and be 100% safe.
If you go AFK in a wormhole-system, you better be prepaired to be there for a while, since nobody can guarantee that the connection won't close on you.
There is no AFK-cloaking in wormholes as there is no local to give away you are there.
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't use it as a example. You just end up looking like the nullbear you are.
Wormholer for life.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
710
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:27:27 -
[7455] - 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) :-).
Give a nerf to local in NS and I will agree to a nerf to cloaking in NS. It's unbalanced to nerf one without addressing the other.
I know you won't agree, given you have no interest in compromise. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 15:58:00 -
[7456] - Quote
Sonya Au contraire!
I would happily compromise towards Ioon's idea of a 1 hour timer for afk cloaky camping. Or compromise towards effective systemwide cyno-blockers without meaningful opportunity costs (for example the a ship based deployable module).
Changing null-sec local involves giving players the opportunity to manipulate null-sec gates (which is how it is balanced in wh space). I am not a huge fan of intrusive measures of this type.
And also think changing local is a hugely off-topic discussion tacked on here because...well...the actual thread on changing local has 0 traction (13 odd posts from a year ago if I remember correctly).
" 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
710
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 16:11:57 -
[7457] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Au contraire!
I would happily compromise towards Ioon's idea of a 1 hour timer for afk cloaky camping. Or compromise towards effective systemwide cyno-blockers without meaningful opportunity costs (for example the a ship based deployable module).
Changing null-sec local involves giving players the opportunity to manipulate null-sec gates (which is how it is balanced in wh space). I am not a huge fan of intrusive measures of this type.
And also think changing local is a hugely off-topic discussion tacked on here because...well...the actual thread on changing local has 0 traction (13 odd posts from a year ago if I remember correctly).
This thread is about changing local. You can't intelligently talk about nerfs to cloaks in sov null without talking about nerfs to local, given local is the only reason people dislike AFK cloaking.
Jerghul, I'm still waiting for you to give me that killmail of when someone killed someone while AFK cloaked. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 16:24:54 -
[7458] - Quote
Sonya Population statistics in wh-space demonstrate clearly how much people hate no local. Despite the relative safety and convenient revenue mechanisms there provide. Changing that in null-sec would require player ability to manipulate gates, system wide cyno blocks without opportunity cost and enhanced revenue opportunities as compensation.
Which is a discussion completely outside the framework of this thread. I will be reporting you for trying to derail the discussion if you persist in claiming this is a "change local" thread.
We are discussing how afk cloaky camping can be curtailed somewhat to limit the negative impact it has on null-sec content.
The least instrusive measure that would have an effect is introducing charges with 5 hour capacity for cloaking modules.
This represents the final compromise. Anything else will be more intrusive and nerf the afk cloaky camping lifestyle much more harshly.
" 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 - 2016.10.31 16:53:12 -
[7459] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Population statistics in wh-space demonstrate clearly how much people hate no local. Despite the relative safety and convenient revenue mechanisms provided. Changing that in null-sec would require player ability to manipulate gates, system wide cyno blocks without opportunity cost and enhanced revenue opportunities as compensation.
Which is a discussion completely outside the framework of this thread. I will be reporting you for trying to derail the discussion if you persist in claiming this is a "change local" thread.
We are discussing how afk cloaky camping can be curtailed somewhat to limit the negative impact it has on null-sec content.
The least instrusive measure that would have an effect is introducing charges with 5 hour capacity for cloaking modules.
This represents the final compromise. Anything else will be more intrusive and nerf the afk cloaky camping lifestyle much more harshly.
Wormholes are NOT safe. Any safety you get in them, is due to you MAKING it safe. Wormholers collect their own intelligence, instead of getting it for free. We have scouts that fly around the chain looking for targets, keeping the map up to date, etc. Cloaks are important for our daily use. We don't care if there is someone watching us, that's just content for us. Any time you move in wormhole-space, you fly like there is someone watching you, be prepaired for PVP.
Local is very much part of this conversation as it's the balancing-point for the cloak. The only way you known that there is someone in the system. The early warning you get from local is 100% accurate, operates faster than the person jumping into the system can and most of all, is COMPLETELY FREE.
If you want to nerf cloaks, you need to change local as well.
https://m.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5a5740/notes_from_the_balancing_roundtable/?utm_source=mweb_redirect&compact=true
"Q: Ratting is too safe, people see you local and dock up. Considered a change of how local showed up? A: Looking into it. Problem has to do with how chat system works. CCP not happy with local as intelligence system."
See, even CCP agrees with me.
There is no "least intrusive method". If this is going to get changed, it's going to be changed properly, no bad bandaid that makes it even safer to rat in null.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 17:09:15 -
[7460] - Quote
Ratpack Its not part of the discussion. No local is a different discussion. A dead discussion as the status of the thread in question indicated.
There are undoubtably better ways to provide individual players with real time intel than local. I agree with CCP there.
The problem with nullsec relates more to lack of players in space than it does to relative safety while in space. Which incidentally is the wormhole issue too. Yay Citadelles for more home comfort.
Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be.
I have nothing against changing isk/tick and linking that to the discussion. Isk lost (in ships) per isk earned is a useful metric.
Afk cloaky camping decreases isk lost (in ships). This is bad.
" 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 - 2016.10.31 17:54:36 -
[7461] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Ratpack Its not part of the discussion. No local is a different discussion. A dead discussion as the status of the thread in question indicated.
There are undoubtably better ways to provide individual players with real time intel than local. I agree with CCP there.
The problem with nullsec relates more to lack of players in space than it does to relative safety while in space. Which incidentally is the wormhole issue too. Yay Citadelles for more home comfort.
Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be.
I have nothing against changing isk/tick and linking that to the discussion. Isk lost (in ships) per isk earned is a useful metric.
Afk cloaky camping decreases isk lost (in ships). This is bad.
Local IS in the heart of this discussion. It's only part of it, it's why we are here. It's why AFK-cloaking was invented and it's what gives it power.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 19:11:04 -
[7462] - Quote
Ratpack Wrong.
Changing local is literally a dead topic that has been latched onto this thread because people care only to the extent that they hate the idea.
If you want to discuss better ways for players to gain real time information, then be my guest.
In a different thread.
Reported.
" 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
710
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 19:13:50 -
[7463] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Population statistics in wh-space demonstrate clearly how much people hate no local. Despite the relative safety and convenient revenue mechanisms provided. Changing that in null-sec would require player ability to manipulate gates, system wide cyno blocks without opportunity cost and enhanced revenue opportunities as compensation.
Which is a discussion completely outside the framework of this thread. I will be reporting you for trying to derail the discussion if you persist in claiming this is a "change local" thread.
We are discussing how afk cloaky camping can be curtailed somewhat to limit the negative impact it has on null-sec content.
The least instrusive measure that would have an effect is introducing charges with 5 hour capacity for cloaking modules.
This represents the final compromise. Anything else will be more intrusive and nerf the afk cloaky camping lifestyle much more harshly.
If NS ratters/miners took the precautions that WHers did when ratting and mining, they would never once be caught by hunters. Yet again you prove me right.
You basically said in the past "null ratters need cloaks nerfed because our ratters make mistakes and don't pay attention". Good. Working as intended. Have you ever lived in WHs? No, I'm assuming. Living in WHs purely for making ISK and not for PvP is very much looked down upon. Is the same true for null?
Two questions I've asked you multiple times (funny how you enjoy ignoring them)
1. What percent of the time spent ratting and mining are your people in standing defense fleets, on comms, and ratting/mining in groups? If you're in null, that should be 100% 2. Can you link me the killmail of someone who was killed in null by someone AFK and cloaked?
I'll patiently wait for you to tell me that my suggestions are too "intrusive" since they make people work for their ISK |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5440
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 19:59:30 -
[7464] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Population statistics in wh-space demonstrate clearly how much people hate no local.
So we are told no-local is fine for WH space because you can close up your WH. But now we are told no-local is bad because people feel unsafe.
"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
5440
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 20:02:45 -
[7465] - Quote
I love how it is always, "Local is not part of the discussion...."
What a load of Bravo Sierra. In fact, it is so wrong that at this point we can just call it a lie.
After all, how does one know a cloaked ship is in system?
Anyone saying local is not part of the discussion is a liar.
"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 - 2016.10.31 20:18:38 -
[7466] - Quote
Ratpack Reported for Ad-hom.
Sonya If players wanted to play in wormhole space, they would do that and be there.
Its frankly a pretty unpopular game environment variation.
Way to not understand what I have said many, many times:
"Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be"
" 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
277
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 20:25:27 -
[7467] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Ratpack Reported for Ad-hom.
Sonya If players wanted to play in wormhole space, they would do that and be there.
Its frankly a pretty unpopular game environment variation.
Way to not understand what I have said many, many times:
"Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be"
Wormhole-space is not for everyone, we know that. It takes a certain type of a player who is willing to risk their ships every day to an unknown attacker.
Nullsec is the kiddy-pool where if you have a pulse, you are safe.
Wormholer for life.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5442
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 20:31:08 -
[7468] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Jerghul wrote:Ratpack Reported for Ad-hom.
Sonya If players wanted to play in wormhole space, they would do that and be there.
Its frankly a pretty unpopular game environment variation.
Way to not understand what I have said many, many times:
"Human error assures that content exists if ships are undocked. The whole problem with afk cloaky camping rotates around it keeping ships docked up and far more secure than they otherwise would be" Wormhole-space is not for everyone, we know that. It takes a certain type of a player who is willing to risk their ships every day to an unknown attacker. Nullsec is the kiddy-pool where if you have a pulse, you are safe.
The lack of local is not really the problem. It is the effort required to live in a WH. That is something I just can't do right now for RL reasons. But the fact that players to live there and thrive there without local suggests that removing local, and letting much of that functionality be regained via an in space structure that is vulnerable to attack will not be a problem for NS.
"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 - 2016.10.31 20:50:49 -
[7469] - Quote
Ratpack Discussions on how null sec players best should have real time intelligence is the subject for a different (and very dead) thread.
No one lives in wh space. It is by far the least popular of game environments.
" 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
277
|
Posted - 2016.10.31 20:57:56 -
[7470] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Ratpack Discussions on how null sec players best should have real time intelligence is the subject for a different (and very dead) thread.
No one lives in wh space. It is by far the least popular of game environments.
Well weird, since I've been living there for about 6 years and I've seen a whole bunch of different corporations and alliances living there. Sure it may not be popular, but saying that nobody lives there is false.
Local IS part of this discussion no matter how much you deny it. Get over it.
Wormholer for life.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |