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
24
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 17:44:17 -
[8131] - Quote
baltec You have the right to your opinion buddy. Its a very tired, old opinion, but you have every right to it.
Its been answered many times. Its a poor idea because it will kill activity in null sec (the whole point of killing afk cloaky camping is to increase activity). Reversing the thought might work. By seeing that wormhole space is dead and allowing for player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel channel generators to be deployed. In effect allowing for the change you want in a sector of space that really needs some help.
You see? Answered again.
I prefer the direct approach to wiping out afk cloaky camping by making going afk in hostile null-sec space a really silly thing to do no matter if your ship is cloaked or uncloaked. Like it should be.
If you cannot put in the effort, then its not something worth doing. To get around intel provided by local; go to wormhole space. Your problem is solved.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
834
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:03:24 -
[8132] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:baltec You have the right to your opinion buddy. Its a very tired, old opinion, but you have every right to it.
Its been answered many times. Its a poor idea because it will kill activity in null sec (the whole point of killing afk cloaky camping is to increase activity). Reversing the thought might work. By seeing that wormhole space is dead and allowing for player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel channel generators to be deployed. In effect allowing for the change you want in a sector of space that really needs some help.
You see? Answered again.
I prefer the direct approach to wiping out afk cloaky camping by making going afk in hostile null-sec space a really silly thing to do no matter if your ship is cloaked or uncloaked. Like it should be.
If you cannot put in the effort, then its not something worth doing. To get around intel provided by local; go to wormhole space. Your problem is solved.
No one has ever said how making ratting and mining in null 100% risk free 100% of the time creates more PvP content. Literally the only people who complain about AFK cloaking are PvEers in sov null.
And if you're saying WH space is dead, that just makes it painfully obvious you never go in WHs. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18435
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:06:08 -
[8133] - Quote
Jerghul wrote: You have the right to your opinion buddy. Its a very tired, old opinion, but you have every right to it.
Its been answered many times. Its a poor idea because it will kill activity in null sec (the whole point of killing afk cloaky camping is to increase activity).
You will be reducing activity by nerfing AFK cloaking, they only counter we have to local.
Jerghul wrote: Reversing the thought might work. By seeing that wormhole space is dead and allowing for player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel channel generators to be deployed. In effect allowing for the change you want in a sector of space that really needs some help.
WH is far from dead.
Jerghul wrote: You see? Answered again.
You told a lie.
Jerghul wrote: I prefer the direct approach to wiping out afk cloaky camping by making going afk in hostile null-sec space a really silly thing to do no matter if your ship is cloaked or uncloaked. Like it should be.
If you cannot put in the effort, then its not something worth doing. To get around intel provided by local; go to wormhole space. Your problem is solved.
AFK cloaker is dedicating days/weeks to their activity, time in which they can do nothing else all in order to hopefully bag a kill that is otherwise uncatchable because of local. What you want is for organisations that own space to have perfect levels of safety. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
24
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:22:41 -
[8134] - Quote
Baltec ATK cloaky camp is a perfectly good counter to activity in a system for as long as you can be bothered to do it. Or go to wormhole space where local is not an issue if you prefer to play without local. Very few people like to play without local.
You see? Answered again. Either be ATK in nullsec, or do whatver in wormhole space that has the environment you want (no local).
Dead in sense that no one dies there. It has 10% of null-sec ship losses for a comparable number of systems. It needs a buff. Player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel structures may fit the ticket. But that is hardly a concern for this thread.
In sum: AFK anything is not an an acceptable counter to anything.
Anyway, this is boring. Am adding you to my blocked list.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18436
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:39:09 -
[8135] - Quote
Jerghul wrote: ATK cloaky camp is a perfectly good counter to activity in a system for as long as you can be bothered to do it. Or go to wormhole space where local is not an issue if you prefer to play without local. Very few people like to play without local.
Unfortunately my prey lives in sov null, so I have to deal with local. AFK cloaking is the only tool I have to counter it.
Jerghul wrote: You see? Answered again. Either be ATK in nullsec, or do whatver in wormhole space that has the environment you want (no local).
Not answered, I have to deal with people using local as an intel tool. The only way around this is to AFK cloak in the target system until the targets get careless which in itself is a pure gamble.
Jerghul wrote: Dead in sense that no one dies there. It has 10% of null-sec ship losses for a comparable number of systems. It needs a buff. Player deployable and destroyable gates and local intel structures may fit the ticket. But that is hardly a concern for this thread.
It has 10% the kills because it has a far smaller population.
Jerghul wrote: In sum: AFK anything is not an an acceptable counter to anything.
Anyway, this is boring. Am adding you to my blocked list.
Ratters do not need a buff to their already high level of safety. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
24
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:42:29 -
[8136] - Quote
Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.
Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.
This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.
More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses).
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18436
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 18:47:10 -
[8137] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.
Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.
This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.
More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses).
Getting rid of AFK claoking reduces pvp, you make it worse not better. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2472
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:23:05 -
[8138] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jerghul wrote:Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.
Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.
This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.
More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses). Getting rid of AFK claoking reduces pvp, you make it worse not better.
I disagree with that, the richer players are, the more likely they will take fun fights, all the cloaky AFK strategy does is make newer players who will like to fight to defend their space poor as hell or risk averse because they cannot afford their stuff, so they don't fight roamers and the only people who like it is rich entitled entities like PL and people like them who can do their assasination type kills and brag with their killboards...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
28
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:37:40 -
[8139] - Quote
Dracvlad I agree.
I think there is a stong case to be made that ship losses are a function of time in space. The more time atk players spend undocked in null-sec for any reason (except afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is such a glaring exception to virtually any rule), the more ships will be lost.
A million ship hours undocked with see twice the kills as 500 000 ship hours undocked.
Afk cloak camping can easily be seen as part of an analysis of barriers that deflate total atk ship hours in space.
Which of course is a very strong argument for removing the afk portion of the equation.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18439
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:39:11 -
[8140] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I disagree with that, the richer players are, the more likely they will take fun fights, all the cloaky AFK strategy does is make newer players who will like to fight to defend their space poor as hell or risk averse because they cannot afford their stuff, so they don't fight roamers and the only people who like it is rich entitled entities like PL and people like them who can do their assasination type kills and brag with their killboards...
This has never happened in the past and will never happen in the future. The ratters see you coming and dock up until you leave. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18439
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:41:04 -
[8141] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Dracvlad I agree.
I think there is a stong case to be made that ship losses are a function of time in space. The more time atk players spend undocked in null-sec for any reason (except afk cloaky camping. Afk cloaky camping is such a glaring exception to virtually any rule), the more ships will be lost.
A million ship hours undocked with see twice the kills as 500 000 ship hours undocked.
Afk cloak camping can easily be seen as part of an analysis of barriers that deflate total atk ship hours in space.
Which of course is a very strong argument for removing the afk portion of the equation.
And how are you going to destroy these ships when they can see you coming from several systems out and follow you in real time via their intel channels?
Remove AFK camping and you remove all of the kills it generates, those kills are not replaced because the only way to get them is to AFK camp the system. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2473
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:45:49 -
[8142] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I disagree with that, the richer players are, the more likely they will take fun fights, all the cloaky AFK strategy does is make newer players who will like to fight to defend their space poor as hell or risk averse because they cannot afford their stuff, so they don't fight roamers and the only people who like it is rich entitled entities like PL and people like them who can do their assasination type kills and brag with their killboards...
This has never happened in the past and will never happen in the future. The ratters see you coming and dock up until you leave.
I was in Saints Among Sinners an IT renter and we would fight roamers most of the time, when Galactic Emperor and I created Pirate Nation we rented from Atlas in Querious, we went after roamers for fun, we organised the other renters to such a degree that the Goons who were there to camp the renters went after Krysis because they were easier. I have plenty of kills on roamers and the like in Querious during that period. And what happened, the CFC sent in two alliances to remove us from our space and they could not do that either. I have lived as a small alliance and done this while you were can flipping...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18439
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:53:50 -
[8143] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I was in Saints Among Sinners an IT renter and we would fight roamers most of the time, when Galactic Emperor and I created Pirate Nation we rented from Atlas in Querious, we went after roamers for fun, we organised the other renters to such a degree that the Goons who were there to camp the renters went after Krysis because they were easier. I have plenty of kills on roamers and the like in Querious during that period. And what happened, the CFC sent in two alliances to remove us from our space and they could not do that either. I have lived as a small alliance and done this while you were can flipping...
We made ISK from our space to enable us to do that ...
I have been part of or attacked every large organisation from the days of bob till now. The vast bulk of ratters will not engage a roaming gang, they will dock and stay docked till the gang is gone.
Remove AFK cloaking and all of the kills generated with that activity will be gone, there will be no uptick in kills from roaming gangs at all. The only difference will be an increase in safety for ratters to 100% with zero counters. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2473
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 19:55:31 -
[8144] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
I was in Saints Among Sinners an IT renter and we would fight roamers most of the time, when Galactic Emperor and I created Pirate Nation we rented from Atlas in Querious, we went after roamers for fun, we organised the other renters to such a degree that the Goons who were there to camp the renters went after Krysis because they were easier. I have plenty of kills on roamers and the like in Querious during that period. And what happened, the CFC sent in two alliances to remove us from our space and they could not do that either. I have lived as a small alliance and done this while you were can flipping...
We made ISK from our space to enable us to do that ...
I have been part of or attacked every large organisation from the days of bob till now. The vast bulk of ratters will not engage a roaming gang, they will dock and stay docked till the gang is gone. Remove AFK cloaking and all of the kills generated with that activity will be gone, there will be no uptick in kills from roaming gangs at all. The only difference will be an increase in safety for ratters to 100% with zero counters.
No there will be more people willing and able to kick ass.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
28
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 20:00:30 -
[8145] - Quote
Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.
FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.
Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.
I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.
The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18440
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 20:05:15 -
[8146] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: No there will be more people willing and able to kick ass.
They want to rat, providing fights means those gangs come back and they can't rat. Its not in the ratters interest to fight that roaming gang, the ratter needs them to go away as quickly as possible and not return. There will bo no uptick in PvP, you will only remove it.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18440
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 20:06:52 -
[8147] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.
FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.
Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.
I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.
The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space.
Thats rubbish and you know it. Gifting 100% safety to ratters is by far the worst thing you can do short of installing concord in null. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
834
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 20:45:24 -
[8148] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.
FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.
Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.
I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.
The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space.
So let's get rid of local, given it's free, automatic intel that prevents human error from being a factor. Why wouldn't I undock to PvE if I didn't realize a hostile was in the system?
Two other things,
1. Don't use numbers from industrial QA metrics for kills in a video game. You just look silly. 2. Don't use "I want to PvP more" as an excuse when you average less than two kills per month. Actually prove you're a PvP player before using "I want to PvP more" as an excuse. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5554
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 21:02:20 -
[8149] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: If done right it could be a really cool and fun mechanic.
What am I completely against is it effectively nerfing it so hard it become useless
That's understood. Goes without saying, but thanks for saying it anyway. Have anything in mind? We'd love to hear some fresh ideas in here
In short, Brokk wants to rat in complete safety.
See Brokk two can play the idiotic game of putting words in other people's mouth.
"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
5554
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 21:05:24 -
[8150] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: If done right it could be a really cool and fun mechanic.
What am I completely against is it effectively nerfing it so hard it become useless
That's understood. Goes without saying, but thanks for saying it anyway. Have anything in mind? We'd love to hear some fresh ideas in here People have given so many ideas over the years its insane that none of them have every been tried. As I said before I love the whole submarine echo probe idea.
Because local is already powerful enough. The one thing a hostile player can do to try and counter that is now to be nerfed?
Brokk is really, when you get right down to it, lying.
Very few have said, "Do nothing, it is fine as it is." Most say, "Nerf local and cloaks." But Brokk can't, apparently, use and honest argument anymore.
Even those who prefer "Do nothing, it is fine as it is." often accept that "Nerf local and cloaks," could work.
So Brokk is ascribing the view of a very small minority to everyone here. He has gone down the rabbit hole of completely dishonest shiptoaster.
"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
5554
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 21:09:58 -
[8151] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jerghul wrote:Monthly statistics were released today. The huge imbalance between production (final product) and destruction has grown worse. 1 ship is being destroyed when 3 ships should be destroyed for better balance between building and destroying.
Essentially - player hangers continue to fill with ships they will never lose.
This is a pretty fundamental reason for why afk cloaky camping has to end.
More activity in space will lead to more ships being killed. Particularly if Alpha clones can join the null-sec in much greater numbers (the logic being that they will die more in null-sec than they do in high sec. And they represent at least half of all null-sec ship losses). Getting rid of AFK claoking reduces pvp, you make it worse not better.
Agreed. If the problem is not enough ships are blowing up, buffing local is NOT the way to go.
"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
5554
|
Posted - 2016.12.02 21:25:25 -
[8152] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jerghul wrote:Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.
FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.
Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.
I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.
The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space. Thats rubbish and you know it. Gifting 100% safety to ratters is by far the worst thing you can do short of installing concord in null.
Jerghul won't see this because he doesn't like it when people question his reasoning.
Jerghul's argument, in a nutshell is this:
1. AFK cloaking is reduced (not gone, see more below) 2. More people are out ratting because of 1. 3. Because people ratting sometimes err--i.e. they start watching Netflix vs. watching local and intel channels--more people will be caught. That is, if the error rate is say, 2% and there are (using simple numbers) 100 ratters, roamers would catch 2 ships and destroy them. Now, without AFK cloaking we get 150 ratters, we'd see 3 ships destroyed.
Thus, nerfing AFK cloaking would result in more kills.
Baltec1 is correct in noting that this does not factor in the decrease in kills related to AFK cloaking. Using the above numbers if AFK cloaking results in 1 kill, the net result of reducing AFK cloaking is no change. If it results in 2 kills, then there are less kills.
Further, Jerghul's reasoning is "just so" style of reasoning. It is possible that that is how things will work out, but we are talking about a game of spontaneous order and emergence. We don't know for sure that such "just so" reasoning will obtain. In fact, I am sure that is what CCP has done when they have made many changes....that in turn blew up in their faces.
As for eliminating AFK cloaking, one possible outcome is using a third party device to log off after a certain amount of time. Using such software probably would not be against they EULA as it would be logging one out...not helping one acquire ISK, resources, or anything else for that matter. There are even phone apps that would let me access my PC via my phone and shut down the client.
And once again, since so many people just cannot be honest in this thread.
I am fine with nerfing cloaks so long as local is also nerfed. Hell, I'd even be open to having local delay showing somebody in local for 10-20 seconds. My preferred solution though is to move intel into a structure and have local simply become a delayed chat channel. Then a cloaked ship lingering too long in a given spot could be probed down and attacked.
"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
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
891
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 01:00:17 -
[8153] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: I am fine with nerfing cloaks so long as local is also nerfed. Hell, I'd even be open to having local delay showing somebody in local for 10-20 seconds. My preferred solution though is to move intel into a structure and have local simply become a delayed chat channel. Then a cloaked ship lingering too long in a given spot could be probed down and attacked.
See? This is why I love having Teckos around: he'll argue with anyone about anything, but in the end he'll support a solution that is far less favourable for the hunter than mine, while gutting AFK cloaking all the same.
At least I also included reverting some safeguard in mission complexes and kept local chat for the hunter in place (assuming moving it into a sov structure will only benefit the sov holder --unless deliberately made public like freeports).
This is indeed the solution you have always supported, I'll grant you that. Then if you don't mind me asking, what happened to "the only counter to local", "AFK is not a problem", "it's only a null sov ratting problem", "get in fleet and on comms" or let's face it, "Brokk is lying", "Jerghul talks rubbish", "Dracvlad is spewing rtarded drivel" and "I agree with Baltec!" ?
Your solution does not remove local- at least not for the null sov ratters. It doesn't even come close to nerfing local, except for those who would prey on the ratters. It does however obliterate sitting AFK in safespots.
Don't get me wrong, it is part of the solution package I myself support as well- but I cannot understand why you insist on agreeing with people who say the exact opposite, and call those who support your position liars. I'm beginning to suspect you just love to argue for arguments sake? Or do you not realise that everything you have said thus far cannot logically result in the conclusion quoted above?
Might as well just have agreed to Drac's AFK flag, you'd have gotten a far better deal out of it. Or Jerghul's 5 hour timer. This proposal of yours, without giving anything back to roaming gangs, simply removes the AFK cloaker without affecting the residents one bit. Didnt need to jump through hoops for hundreds of pages for that- that's what we've been trying to accomplish all along!
Now ... how about refining your concept to add a little risk to the ratting crowd? Or perhaps keep delayed local for the roaming gang without having to anchor a structure in hostile space first? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2475
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 09:50:10 -
[8154] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jerghul wrote:Human error is a huge factor in pvp kills. An untimely biobreak will destroy the best laid plans of mice and men.
FOR AS LONG AS THE MICE AND MEN ARE UNDOCKED.
Again, its a linear thing. The more ships undocked and in space, the more ships will die as the result of human error.
I was using a 3% rule earlier. And arbitrary number borrowed from industrial QA standards. Most raters will be aligned and watching local. And 3% will not be watching local and not be aligned.
The number of ships that 3% represents depends on the number of ships in space. Thats rubbish and you know it. Gifting 100% safety to ratters is by far the worst thing you can do short of installing concord in null.
No it is not, and you fail again for not understanding that some people are very good and able to focus and others cannot and get complacent which is the point I kept making that the more people that operate and are in space the more likely that roamers will get kills.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
32
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 11:27:32 -
[8155] - Quote
Everyone makes mistakes. Careful pilots might screw up 1% of the time. Careless pilots might screw up 10% of the time. New pilots might screw up 100% of the time.
Every encounter in null-sec is based on at least one of the parties having made a mistake.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2475
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 11:54:50 -
[8156] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Everyone makes mistakes. Careful pilots might screw up 1% of the time. Careless pilots might screw up 10% of the time. New pilots might screw up 100% of the time.
Every encounter in null-sec is based on at least one of the parties having made a mistake.
I agree, I have seen it happen again and again, even people like me make mistakes, also as I have pointed out in this thread there are periods of vulnerability too. And as I have pointed out again and again it has been made easier to catch people with interceptors that warp fast and are immune to bubbles.
And another thing I would like to see, is when the local in sov null sec is supplied by an OA which can be attacked and removed and is something that people who want kills can do, is that CCP also have a new ship module that impedes the recognition signal and delays local and this modules compromises fitting, so this impact on local reporting is not free of cost.
The OA only supplies local to its own corp or own alliance members, if the attacker wants local they have to set one up themselves. This data cannot be free to attackers from the defenders own OA, it does not make sense to do that and people who want that free intel cannot sprout forth about free intel supplied by local without being red faced.
Once AFK cloaky camping can be disrupted in whatever way CCP decide to do it I will head back to 0.0, and I will be happy to have local by putting up OA's where I am hunting. I will be putting my money where my mouth is...
I will regret the loss of the safety of the cloak, but if thise removes this lame AFK play then I will accept it.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18456
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 13:49:59 -
[8157] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
No it is not
Yes it is. We cannot rely upon people falling asleep to be the only weakness, we need a counter and AFK cloaking is the only one we have.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2476
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 13:52:12 -
[8158] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No it is not
Yes it is. We cannot rely upon people falling asleep to be the only weakness, we need a counter and AFK cloaking is the only one we have.
Nope when local is a OA you can blow it up!
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
32
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 14:00:21 -
[8159] - Quote
Afk cloaky campers also rely on people making mistakes. Its just that afk cloaky campers wait with 0 effort and while waiting lay waste to activity in huge parts of the EvE ecosystem. It really does need to be fixed as soon as possible.
The counter to people making mistakes is to be ATK and in hostile space.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18456
|
Posted - 2016.12.03 14:05:56 -
[8160] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
No it is not
Yes it is. We cannot rely upon people falling asleep to be the only weakness, we need a counter and AFK cloaking is the only one we have. Nope when local is a OA you can blow it up!
With an invasion fleet, roaming gangs and solo ships cannot do this
Equally, the damn thing will pick you up as you enter the system so you cant get the drop on ratters no matter what you do. Even if a solo bomber can kill it and even if there is no reinforcement timer you will be detected and reported which means you catch nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |