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) |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2643
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 21:49:30 -
[8581] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams.
Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity.
Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway.
I get the impression that they think that they should be able to get a kill on someone who does it right 100% of the time, it is quite laughable to be honest.
What is wrong with having to have people make an error, do they have to have it given to them along with a dummy and a pair of nappies. This was the reason a great friend of mine left the game, as far as he was concerned hunting had been dumbed down and made too easy so he no longer saw Eve as a challenge as a hunter.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
336
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 21:52:37 -
[8582] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams.
Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity.
Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway.
It is also not a god given right that you are supposed to get 100% accurate, always up to date Intel with zero effort.
Wormholer for life.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
909
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 22:17:41 -
[8583] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I get the impression that they think that they should be able to get a kill on someone who does it right 100% of the time, it is quite laughable to be honest.
What is wrong with having to have people make an error, do they have to have it given to them along with a dummy and a pair of nappies. This was the reason a great friend of mine left the game, as far as he was concerned hunting had been dumbed down and made too easy so he no longer saw Eve as a challenge as a hunter.
Why do you keep talking to your alt like this? Everyone and their brother knows what you're trying to do |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5649
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 23:23:08 -
[8584] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams.
Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity.
Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway.
Well, good thing nobody said this.
"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
5649
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 23:24:22 -
[8585] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I get the impression that they think that they should be able to get a kill on someone who does it right 100% of the time, it is quite laughable to be honest.
What is wrong with having to have people make an error, do they have to have it given to them along with a dummy and a pair of nappies. This was the reason a great friend of mine left the game, as far as he was concerned hunting had been dumbed down and made too easy so he no longer saw Eve as a challenge as a hunter.
I get the impression you could represents another person's argument honestly if your life depended on it.
"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
3662
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 01:23:10 -
[8586] - Quote
Get what 100% right? See bad guy -> dock up. Damn right im trying to change that. You think its wrong i want such a brainless and one-dimensional process gone? Really?
Whereas without local you won't be sure if you've got it 100% right or not. Not even the hunter knows whether they've got it 100% right when he can't see who else is in system.
@Jerghul, Attentive players who are at the keyboard will still see bad guys on d-scan and have a way to detect cloaked ships. Removing local doesn't hurt attentive players compared to the dumb and lazy.
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
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 06:41:06 -
[8587] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:If that was the case dracvlad, afk cloaking wouldn't be the main way to catch ratters. People started afk cloaking BECAUSE roaming gangs are ineffective thanks to local.
Xcom, local was never intended to be used like it is either. Devs never sat down and said, this will be a way to keep intel on a system. And every proposed nerf to cloaks hurts the cloaky hunting you claim to be fine with one way or another.
I never said local was or is working as planned, I also agree its overpowered. But its not part of the cloaking discussion, just an extension to the features cloaking touches. Your also right about a change having an adverse impact on cloaks in general. But that is perfectly fine as cloaks are overpowered too. Its the definition of a nerf and cloaking needs one. No one said to nerf it to the ground, just ever slightly to make it reasonably less safer then it is right now. For the love of God, how can your literally write that without being in some sort of cognitive dissonance? You admit local is probably not working as intended (which I'll admit is not always a bad thing, but not always a good thing either, the use of the vindicator and webbing to catch jump freighters is an example of not working as intended being bad). You also admit it is overpowered. Then you say it is not part of the cloaking discussion....when it is local that tells you there is an AFK cloaker present (or even a regular cloaker). That is, local that has led to AFK cloaking. But it is not part of the discussion? Seriously? AFK cloaking and local are intertwined, and changing one without changing the other is likely going to cause imbalance, not balance. Now, please consider that last sentence carefully. It means we can't just change local. That is "off the table". Similarly, we can't just change cloaks. That too is, "off the table". So we change them together and hopefully we get more people out in space and more people caught by roaming gangs, and with more roaming gangs, more defense fleets. More fun, more excitement. What are you on about. Going AFK after cloaking can be done in space where local is not present. Why are you assuming that the two are directly linked when the cloaking module is a global module in all types of space while your just referring to the space that only concerns the 20% of players that can be impacted by the local + AFK cloaking terrorizing mechanic. The two are not directly linked where one would not be possible without the other. Its only one directional, locals only counter is AFK camping but AFK cloaking can be done without local. If you want a counter to local then OA is the solution, not keeping a broken mechanic as cloaking in the form where you can go AFK in. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3663
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 07:07:09 -
[8588] - Quote
Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked.
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
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 07:11:14 -
[8589] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Jerghul wrote:Its not actually a god given right to be given tactical surprise at the whimsy of yolo roams. I have yet to see a coherent argument suggesting that pve players taking proper precautions and being attentively atk should be vulnerable to drunk roams.
Real time information should be enhanced, not nerfed. In the name of maintaining and improving activity.
Let human error give the kills. Its what all kills are ultimately based on without exploits anyway. I get the impression that they think that they should be able to get a kill on someone who does it right 100% of the time, it is quite laughable to be honest. What is wrong with having to have people make an error, do they have to have it given to them along with a dummy and a pair of nappies. This was the reason a great friend of mine left the game, as far as he was concerned hunting had been dumbed down and made too easy so he no longer saw Eve as a challenge as a hunter. I think you said it best. Same idiots who want to provocatively start arguments cause they get something out of it. I totally agree that it would just turn null sec barren and reduce population drastically if half the stuff these idiots suggest were to happen. Engagements aren't entitled, its earned. Cloaks should help not give you the right to get the jump on people. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
153
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 07:21:55 -
[8590] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked. This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2644
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 09:03:45 -
[8591] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Get what 100% right? See bad guy -> dock up. Damn right im trying to change that. You think its wrong i want such a brainless and one-dimensional process gone? Really?
Whereas without local you won't be sure if you've got it 100% right or not. Not even the hunter knows whether they've got it 100% right when he can't see who else is in system.
The problem is that you did not read what I said in earlier posts on this subject, and what I said just a bit earlier on carriers is also very important, what do you need to get hold of slow to warp ships, or those waiting for fighters, an interceptor, that is beneath you WH players isn't it, so cry more please. People would log off sabres and nab them that way with stop bubbles, so warping directly to stations was not a good idea, we used to have a number of POS's setup to prevent this type of loss, but you just expect to have a WH open up into the system and get kills in a DPS ship such as a Proteus well tough shite, act like a tard get results like a tard.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18521
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 11:10:07 -
[8592] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked. This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other.
But the only reason you want it gone is because you don't want that red in local while you rat. AFK cloaking is the only counter to local based intel networks and you want that counter gone as well as wanting to destroy the entire point of a cloaking device which is to allow players to operate behind enemy lines for extended periods of time. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
155
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 11:24:08 -
[8593] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Xcom wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Afk cloaking is a complete non-issue without local or where local is useless because of false positives (i.e. wh and hi-sec).
But when you try to use local as intel, afk cloaking suddenly becomes a problem. Yes using local intel and afk cloaking are obviously linked. This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. But the only reason you want it gone is because you don't want that red in local while you rat. AFK cloaking is the only counter to local based intel networks and you want that counter gone as well as wanting to destroy the entire point of a cloaking device which is to allow players to operate behind enemy lines for extended periods of time. Not really. I want it gone because its stupid having a system where a player have the ability to stay behind enemy lines indefinitely without effort. Cloaking impacts more then just null, basing the whole argument behind the one and only reason makes me think its justifiably reasonable removing that ability. The impact will be minimal for the global gained throughout eve, in all types of space for the betterment of general game balance reasons and overall game play perspective from more angles then the one single gameplay area. A minority will simply have to suffer by change and I would rather that be to the type of players that justify AFK along with PVP. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3663
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 14:38:06 -
[8594] - Quote
And yet if i go afk whilst cloaked in a wh, no one cares. But if i do it where people try to use local as intel, threads start popping up. Ignoring the pattern there is willful ignorance. The people who have a problem with afk cloaking are also a very small minority. Whereas nerfs to cloaking will have an impact in all areas of the game.
Regarding carriers, they are aligned to safes and then cloak.They dont have to wait for their fighters and why does carrier ratting need special consideration exactly? Where is their fleet?
So thats why we have to have local? So you can solo rat in a carrier? And you talk about entitlement...
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
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2646
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 14:44:08 -
[8595] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:And yet if i go afk whilst cloaked in a wh, no one cares. But if i do it where people try to use local as intel, threads start popping up. Ignoring the pattern there is willful ignorance. The people who have a problem with afk cloaking are also a very small minority. Whereas nerfs to cloaking will have an impact in all areas of the game.
Regarding carriers, they are aligned to safes and then cloak.They dont have to wait for their fighters and why does carrier ratting need special consideration exactly? Where is their fleet?
So thats why we have to have local? So you can solo rat in a carrier? And you talk about entitlement...
So you just post and don't read what is posted by people, earlier I pointed out that carriers died a lot when they were better with Sentries, local was not an issue, then sentries were nerfed in terms of carriers and the plush kills ended, was that the fault of local and why did people kill so many.
Now you just ignored the basic point of this to be a smart ass and make a stupid comment out of context to carriers, as such I have now marked you as a troll, you are now blocked for being a total tool and not worth my time reading, up yours troll.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
70
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 14:45:07 -
[8596] - Quote
Daichi More and better real time information, bro. Not less of it. Everywhere. Including the almost irredemably broken wormhole space.
Because activity and activity derived content.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
910
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 15:05:16 -
[8597] - Quote
Xcom wrote:This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other.
You've never lived in WHs, have you? In WHs you never assume you're alone, so it's not a big deal if someone is cloaked next to you. You're in PvP fit ships, in fleet and on comms with everyone else. If someone decloaks and shoots you, great, you get to fight back. That's the difference. Nullseccers want risk free PvE.
The only way you guarentee you're alone in a system in a wormhole? Keep a dictor and insta-locker on every incoming connection 100% of the time (which happens often when safety is needed) |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
161
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 17:18:27 -
[8598] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This is a logical fallacy. AFK cloaking refers to going AFK while cloaked. You can try it yourself, go to w-space and go AFK, its 100% safe. There is no local so its not possible stating that AFK cloaking is directly linked to local. Its your opinion that it's not a problem which is your subjective opinion. Objectively the two are not conditionally linked as one can be done without the other. You've never lived in WHs, have you? In WHs you never assume you're alone, so it's not a big deal if someone is cloaked next to you. You're in PvP fit ships, in fleet and on comms with everyone else. If someone decloaks and shoots you, great, you get to fight back. That's the difference. Nullseccers want risk free PvE. The doctrine mining ships in WH corps more often than not call for a warp disruptor so you can hold the attacker on grid long enough for the defense fleet to show up The only way you guarentee you're alone in a system in a wormhole? Keep a dictor and insta-locker on every incoming connection 100% of the time (which happens often when safety is needed) I actually have lived in WS. Its the type of space I actually prefer to live out of besides empire. I don't really care much for null sec. Tried it way back and never got into it. But I don't know why my gaming preference have any merit to game balance ideology.
Do I need to get some kind of degree before I can voice my opinion on the forums? Does anyone in this thread have one? Did CCP have degrees or understanding of cloaks when they added them? Its not a question about merits. Its about gaming balance and mechanics. If you were to get hired tomorrow by CCP, the choices you would make would impact the game in either positive or negative either long or shorterm. The main problem with stupid comments like. Your opinion doesn't matter cause your not experienced enough is just stupid. By that logic CCP should be fired and we should hire baltec1 to ruin the game for us.
This game is not based around nulls ratting features. Its also not based out of "HTFU and always be ready for anything". If that was the case we would still have the total DD blasts on titans that could off grid nuke using cynos. Its about what makes this game better for more then the idiot who enjoys going AFK just to stick it to the people he is trying to grief. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18521
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 19:02:12 -
[8599] - Quote
Xcom wrote: Not really. I want it gone because its stupid having a system where a player have the ability to stay behind enemy lines indefinitely without effort.
Yet you are fine with people being 100% safe behind intel systems spanning several regions, bring able to dock, be immune to any harm when in range of a citadel or in a pos shield.
The drawbacks to the cloaking device are rather savage. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3664
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 20:22:02 -
[8600] - Quote
Dracvlad, i didn't read your post about carriers, this thread is over 400 pages long. But regardless carriers weren't dying all the time. In what period are you suggesting they were? In the time it takes them to warp from standstill, the hunter has barely loaded grid.
If its any consolation xcom, i disregard your arguments because you seem to think that those that want to pve should be extremely difficult to pvp with and anyone who wants to attack pve players is a terrible person for even thinking of doing so. And if I'm right in thinking that, EVE isn't the game for you. It IS built around pvp, most frequently non-consensual, and a HTFU attitude. The nature of the target, no matter how carebeary, is irrelevant. There are no fair fights. Only fights.
You'll say its killing the game, but its actually the opposite. Pve players dont stick around. Pvp players who get their first taste of blood, be it carebear blood, do.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5649
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 21:05:41 -
[8601] - Quote
Xcom wrote:
What are you on about. Going AFK after cloaking can be done in space where local is not present. Why are you assuming that the two are directly linked when the cloaking module is a global module in all types of space while your just referring to the space that only concerns the 20% of players that can be impacted by the local + AFK cloaking terrorizing mechanic. The two are not directly linked where one would not be possible without the other. Its only one directional, locals only counter is AFK camping but AFK cloaking can be done without local. If you want a counter to local then OA is the solution, not keeping a broken mechanic as cloaking in the form where you can go AFK in.
Of course you can AFK cloak without local, but what is the point? Suppose you are in a system with no local. I come in, you won't see me unless you use d-scan. If I then cloak up and go AFK you'll never know I am there. So I will have no impact on you. None. It becomes pointless unless I'm going for a bio, food, answer the phone, etc.
AFK cloaking only works because of local. No local, no AFK cloaking. Local is how you know a cloaked ship is there. Local is what lets you detect cloaked ships. Not enough to find them, but enough to know there is one in system. Local is the counter to cloaking...it lets you know that danger is there and you don't know where, so change your behavior.
"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
913
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 21:15:03 -
[8602] - Quote
Xcom wrote:I actually have lived in WS. Its the type of space I actually prefer to live out of besides empire. I don't really care much for null sec. Tried it way back and never got into it. But I don't know why my gaming preference have any merit to game balance ideology.
Do I need to get some kind of degree before I can voice my opinion on the forums? Does anyone in this thread have one? Did CCP have degrees or understanding of cloaks when they added them? Its not a question about merits. Its about gaming balance and mechanics. If you were to get hired tomorrow by CCP, the choices you would make would impact the game in either positive or negative either long or shorterm. The main problem with stupid comments like. Your opinion doesn't matter cause your not experienced enough is just stupid. By that logic CCP should be fired and we should hire baltec1 to ruin the game for us.
This game is not based around nulls ratting features. Its also not based out of "HTFU and always be ready for anything". If that was the case we would still have the total DD blasts on titans that could off grid nuke using cynos. Its about what makes this game better for more then the idiot who enjoys going AFK just to stick it to the people he is trying to grief.
Then you would know the only way to be safe is to be on comms, in a fleet, in the same system as the fleet, and be ready to fight back 100% of the time.
If null did that, AFK cloaking would be a non-issue. Obviously you can voice your opinion, just like I am voicing mine. I keep bringing up nullsec because sov null is literally the only place in the game that complains about AFK cloaking. It's also the biggest place in the game where people want a huge reward for no risk. There's nothing wrong with wanting to rat or mine safely. Stay in highsec and don't bling out your ship. You can't have your cake and eat it too. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8110
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 23:33:04 -
[8603] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:I still think that destroying the game IS their game. But perhaps it's proof that CCP does not play their own game any more beyond just testing it.
War Thunder is fun in the meantime. so what's your response to the fact that the number of players was substantially higher before they nerfed ganking?
Frankly after much thought I'm forced to conclude that ganking is not a cornerstone of player retention. It may drive some out of the game, but not substantially. Players who inflate their ego with the notion that ganking drives players away like to think so, and then get jollies on saying it aint so - hence there will never be a true metric around this notion.
What has hurt Eve the most is that the game went towards rewarding the kind of player who "has all the time in the world" so to speak. Casual gaming has suffered greatly from the changes over the last 2-3 years. The deep dark secret is that Eve was better off with a lot of casual gaming. And while the HTFU religionists might want to chime in with their strawmen of casual/PVe being "easy", keep in mind that what killed exploration as an example for a lot of players was that CCP made it infinitely (relatively) easier to do exploration.
The SP system was the final bulwark between players who had "all the time in the world" and those casuals who have jobs, families, etc. Keep in mind that someone who spends many hours on a video game every day looks mentally ill to those who WOULD NOT, and extremely useless to those who CANNOT (huge difference, hence the caps) . While Eve had a bad reputation for the ass-hattery, it still had a good reputation for not rewarding "bad" behavior, from the perspective of casuals who are the vast majority of gamers.
Yes it does not go along the lines of "HTFU this is Eve hurrr durrrr" but the final reality is that casual play is what brings in the rank and file and gives potential life and vigor to the die-hards. We had the biggest fleet fight in all of game history and nobody really cared the way players used to care.
This thread is about AFK cloaking. A casual gamer does not have to put up with this "Schroedingers Cat" situation regarding whether the stranger in local (with the killboard showing him in the gang of BLOPS fleets horing in with a target painter.... ahem *cough*) is actually at the keyboard or not. I would say that the weaponization of boredome in Eve has done more harm than ganking. Ganking and getting ganked can actually be exciting.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
163
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 08:15:04 -
[8604] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:
What are you on about. Going AFK after cloaking can be done in space where local is not present. Why are you assuming that the two are directly linked when the cloaking module is a global module in all types of space while your just referring to the space that only concerns the 20% of players that can be impacted by the local + AFK cloaking terrorizing mechanic. The two are not directly linked where one would not be possible without the other. Its only one directional, locals only counter is AFK camping but AFK cloaking can be done without local. If you want a counter to local then OA is the solution, not keeping a broken mechanic as cloaking in the form where you can go AFK in.
Of course you can AFK cloak without local, but what is the point? Suppose you are in a system with no local. I come in, you won't see me unless you use d-scan. If I then cloak up and go AFK you'll never know I am there. So I will have no impact on you. None. It becomes pointless unless I'm going for a bio, food, answer the phone, etc. AFK cloaking only works because of local. No local, no AFK cloaking. Local is how you know a cloaked ship is there. Local is what lets you detect cloaked ships. Not enough to find them, but enough to know there is one in system. Local is the counter to cloaking...it lets you know that danger is there and you don't know where, so change your behavior. So by your definition the AFK cloaking concept is somehow related to null sec terrorizing? Its interlinked as cloaked ships only should or shouldn't change based on impact they have on other players? I don't know what you have been smoking but AFK cloaking by the accurate definition of the 2 words means going AFK while cloaked. Nothing to do with how it impacts other players.
Also in what stupid mindset do you have to have to think that AFK cloaking + null sec terror tactics / camping is a valid and good mechanic. It should be removed, not replaced. This type of mechanic is not constructive for null sec or any other type of space / game play. Just because it is used right now doesn't make it any good and shouldn't take a backseat to any local alterations. Its broken, not justified. Null ratting is not the center keystone of why cloaks shouldn't change.
Its so narrow minded and idiotic thinking that cloaks shouldn't change until something can replace something as so broken as AFK cloaking + null sec terrorizing. Your bitter old mindset regarding nulls "to safe" makes you really blind to the full scope of the module instead of exploring more options to the area your actually concerned about, null space. If you took the huge stick out of your ass and posted something constructive you might actually come up with an idea that might make the type of space your so bitter about change for the better instead of troll other threads that might even so much as touch null concepts. |
Limur Deninard
D-Don Elemental Tide
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 08:35:35 -
[8605] - Quote
Cloaking devices have to use fuel, covert ops will eat more fuel than non-covert ops devices. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18525
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 11:30:14 -
[8606] - Quote
Limur Deninard wrote:Cloaking devices have to use fuel, covert ops will eat more fuel than non-covert ops devices.
And at a stroke you just wiped out a lot of pvp and exploration. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
71
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 12:58:56 -
[8607] - Quote
Fuel is a timer based solution. Its good.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
338
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 20:39:43 -
[8608] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Fuel is a timer based solution. Its good.
You'd support any idea that would increase safety in the game.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
71
|
Posted - 2016.12.31 21:35:02 -
[8609] - Quote
Talking to the hand, bro.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5652
|
Posted - 2017.01.01 00:15:48 -
[8610] - Quote
Xcom wrote: So by your definition the AFK cloaking concept is somehow related to null sec terrorizing? Its interlinked as cloaked ships only should or shouldn't change based on impact they have on other players? I don't know what you have been smoking but AFK cloaking by the accurate definition of the 2 words means going AFK while cloaked. Nothing to do with how it impacts other players.
No, I said local and cloaks should change together, or neither should change. Pick one, not mix and match. Either way you mix or match you create an imbalance.
Quote:Also in what stupid mindset do you have to have to think that AFK cloaking + null sec terror tactics / camping is a valid and good mechanic. It should be removed, not replaced. This type of mechanic is not constructive for null sec or any other type of space / game play. Just because it is used right now doesn't make it any good and shouldn't take a backseat to any local alterations. Its broken, not justified. Null ratting is not the center keystone of why cloaks shouldn't change.
Because it is NS. It is not supposed to be safe....or more accurately it is only as safe as you make it. If you group together, take sov, have outposts, conquerable stations and put down citadels, etc. Put together an intel channel and so forth, then you can make it safer...via effort. With more effort more safety. When there is the option for something to be player driven or CCP driven, the default option should be player driven.
CCP appears to have forgotten this.
Quote:Its so narrow minded and idiotic thinking that cloaks shouldn't change until something can replace something as so broken as AFK cloaking + null sec terrorizing. Your bitter old mindset regarding nulls "to safe" makes you really blind to the full scope of the module instead of exploring more options to the area your actually concerned about, null space. If you took the huge stick out of your ass and posted something constructive you might actually come up with an idea that might make the type of space your so bitter about change for the better instead of troll other threads that might even so much as touch null concepts.
Cloaking in general is not broken. AFK cloaking in general is not broken either. It is, I think, arguably sub-optimal, but not broken. Multiple methods to deal with it are available.
Seriously get some buddies, 3 of them. Have them get into procurors and skiffs. Have them tank them, omni tank them. Move them into a mining anomaly or even just a belt. You get into a cloaky nullified T3 and try to take 1...just 1 of them out before they take you out or force you off the field.
The point is that against 3 such mining ships a single cloaking ship is in trouble. Two could probably take out one if he were dumb and off from the other 2.
Funny, the complaint used to be 100s even 1,000s of players went and took sov, and 1 guy! 1 guy!!! Has foiled all the effort of all those people!!!! It is a goddamn travesty!!!
But, you can't rat in a group?
The response is, "What and ruin my ISK/hour!?!?!?!?!?"
"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
|
|
|
|
|
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 |