Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] [15]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Taram Caldar
Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:37:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Xeronn
Originally by: Dr Slaughter Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 16/08/2008 22:25:29
Originally by: Xeronn i have NO way whatsoever to bring upon him the praised non-consensual PvP he claims to love so much.
So a bait ship with points a large buffer and mates in the next system won't work? Are you for real?
Ok. I guess you are.
Just out of interest... please could all those posters that want cloaks nerfing help CCP decide that it's definitely a problem. Go through all your loss mails and identify all the times you've been killed by a until recently cloaked ship. I don't care about AFK or otherwise. I'm interested in:
1. How many ships you've lost to 'recently cloaked' ships, 2. The distribution of the type of ships you lost, 3. Where you lost them (0.0, low sec, hi sec).
Then do the same thing for all your other losses and compare and contrast. Please post your results here. I'm sure it will make fascinating reading for both sides of this argument.
Ok you have a good point there . Personaly last thing i lost to a cloaker (if i remember right ) was a hulk, and yea, I was afk ,
Oklet me try to rephrase
I find it great that a smaller force, IF really determined , using tactics/isk/skill/coordonation, can get past system defences unharmed , go in , cause damage and get out ...guerilla warfare...awessome...player skills and tactics should allways matter and should never be totaly undone by simple game mechanics.
But now reverse the issue . Shouldn`t a very determined /resourcefull/skilled (hehe not me...just a hypothetical one) defender be able to ACTIVELY pursue and stand a chanche to catch/kill the attackers?
Note that I say actively , I mean having a way to tacke the initiative and not simply beeing ready for the time you decide to take the initiative and fight . Sure if he` dumb hell fall for random bait...
Simple: hunt them when they're active. It's not hard to figure it out. And it's very easy to do. Now... I'm not about to tell you exactly how to do it but I will say this: Drakes and Hictors don't make good bait :) Get a little creative. Whenever I see people try to bait with mega tank ships I just laugh. It's not like a cloaker will attack a ship they KNOW they can't break the tank on. |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:38:00 -
[422]
Right.. Hopefully a future AFK timer change will insure to everyone that it is an active stalker.. Thus the baits.. |
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:38:00 -
[423]
Originally by: Farrqua
Originally by: Farrqua
Originally by: Pan Dora
Originally by: Zachstar That is unfortunate as I am attempting to get CCP to go for a light solution now.. Instead of an AFK timer to get at the abusers.. They may do somthing that will harm those who use it legit purposes.. Don't think a cooldown timer or fuel for even covops is out of the question.. They have done MUCH MUCH MUCH larger nerfs before..
[b]Can you please point us to your source of information about this concerns CCP suposely have?
^^This. Link the source of the CCP concerns about the cloak issue.
I would really like to know.
But you won't - not from this idiot. He implies that he has a direct line to CCP, and that HE is trying to hold them back from a major cloaking nerf.
He doesn't, of course.
I'm all for keeping this thread alive for as long as Zachstar is prepared to keep posting. I have faith that his own drivel is the best way for all to see that the "major issue" he is trying to highlight is a non-issue.
Bottom line is that Zachstar doesn't like AFK cloaking. Zachstar thinks that if he trolls for long enough, CCP will take note of him and act on his recommendations. Unfortunately for Zachstar, the issue HE has a major problem with isn't anywhere near as major for almost everyone else.
The issue of insured, no-risk, high sec ganking was seriously contentious - because people were losing ships, and the gankers suffered virtually no penalty.
Zachstar claims that this is the SAME as someone AFK cloaking in null sec. However, no-one loses a ship to an AFK pilot. When the pilot is not AFK and decloaks and attacks, it is no different than being attacked by any other ship... and normal combat tactics apply.
Zachstar knows this, of course, but he's a tool.
Sorry about the "hotstility" man, but you're an ******* and you need to be reminded of it repeatedly.
You keep posting your shite, and I'll keep reminding you |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:48:00 -
[424]
So if I am such a **** and CCP will supposedly bypass this because I am such a **** then the hostily is for what? Helping your cause?
I NEVER implied I had any direct line to CCP my words were of my constant mentioning of the AFK timer when I could be asking for fuel or automatic decloak or whatever.. |
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:57:00 -
[425]
Originally by: Zachstar So if I am such a **** and CCP will supposedly bypass this because I am such a **** then the hostily is for what? Helping your cause?
I NEVER implied I had any direct line to CCP my words were of my constant mentioning of the AFK timer when I could be asking for fuel or automatic decloak or whatever..
Your hostility is not helping you.. |
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:59:00 -
[426]
That is unfortunate as I am attempting to get CCP to go for a light solution now.. ..
This is implying you have knowledge of or in contact with CCP. You are alluding to fact you have some kind of pull to directly affect the changes. |
oilio
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 19:03:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Zachstar That is unfortunate as I am attempting to get CCP to go for a light solution now..
I have no cause with regards to AFK cloaking in null sec.
My "cause" as you put it is simply that I read the trolling/distortions that you use in support of YOUR cause, and I feel compelled to expose you for the jerk that you are.
As to your implication about a "direct line" - read the quote above as ONE example. Haven't you noticed that there's at best only muted support for your garbage?
Some people have spoken in opposition to AFK cloaking. Some people have actually used reasonable arguments (like the issue with exploratin sites). You have just trolled. I am trying to keep the spotlight on you and your weak arguments because I believe that's the best way to undermine them.
Like I said, keep posting your shite . |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 19:05:00 -
[428]
Originally by: Farrqua That is unfortunate as I am attempting to get CCP to go for a light solution now.. ..
This is implying you have knowledge of or in contact with CCP. You are alluding to fact you have some kind of pull to directly affect the changes.
If that is how you take it then I will correct myself and say that I have no line outside of this public forum or any additional pull. |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 19:15:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Farrqua That is unfortunate as I am attempting to get CCP to go for a light solution now.. ..
This is implying you have knowledge of or in contact with CCP. You are alluding to fact you have some kind of pull to directly affect the changes.
Passes Farrqua the baton, some pre-history that keeps repeating itself but fortunately seems to be ignored by CCP, and goes AFK.. |
Nikkoli
Immortalis Kruoris
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 19:21:00 -
[430]
every time I see topics like this, I have to laugh because if the person is afk 23 hours a day, then why are you even concerned that they exist? if they are AFK then they aren't even there to know you exist, so why bother caring if they exist? |
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 19:40:00 -
[431]
Locked.
Thread has gone as far as it could in terms of constructive content and is now full of flames. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] [15]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |