Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tradew1nd
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 20:26:00 -
[1]
Recently In one part of nullsec, a group of pilots has been using the "AFK cloaking" tactic not to just present a continuous threat, but actively cause economic damage with no possible reprecussion or harm to themselves.
the pilots in question have been sitting inside anomalies cloaked, preventing them from cycling.
While I understand that "afk cloaking" is a valid tactic in and of itself, because while it presents a threat, it has no impact that is not counterable by other player action (someone gets attacked, they can fight off and recieve aid)
I feel that this takes the "afk cloaking" tactic into the realm of exploits as it is an agressive action (not directly destroying ships, but economic) that is uncounterable by other player action.
as has been shown before by CCP, the only things that have ever been ruled exploits are those few tactics that are uncounterable by the actions of another player.
while at the current time this has not been deemed an exploit, perhaps the dev team should review this, and reevaluate that stance, as it very much goes against the principles eve is built on to have one side be able to do damage of any kind without the other being able to counter or mitigate it.
|
AtheistOfFail
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 20:39:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Tradew1nd Recently In one part of nullsec, a group of pilots has been using the "AFK cloaking" tactic not to just present a continuous threat, but actively cause economic damage with no possible reprecussion or harm to themselves.
the pilots in question have been sitting inside anomalies cloaked, preventing them from cycling.
While I understand that "afk cloaking" is a valid tactic in and of itself, because while it presents a threat, it has no impact that is not counterable by other player action (someone gets attacked, they can fight off and recieve aid)
I feel that this takes the "afk cloaking" tactic into the realm of exploits as it is an agressive action (not directly destroying ships, but economic) that is uncounterable by other player action.
as has been shown before by CCP, the only things that have ever been ruled exploits are those few tactics that are uncounterable by the actions of another player.
while at the current time this has not been deemed an exploit, perhaps the dev team should review this, and reevaluate that stance, as it very much goes against the principles eve is built on to have one side be able to do damage of any kind without the other being able to counter or mitigate it.
How does "Bite me" sound? Wanna fight back? Warp in a tanker, then warp in a couple of cepters and burn around for a bit
~~~~~Signature Starts Here~~~~~
Need a 3rd party? Check me out. |
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 20:58:00 -
[3]
Aw yes, the mighty guy that is not even in front of his pc.
Read latest "THE WORD" |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: AtheistOfFail How does "Bite me" sound? Wanna fight back? Warp in a tanker, then warp in a couple of cepters and burn around for a bit
How does "You must have been dropped repeatedly as a toddler" sound? 4-500km grid, that is 64M+ cubic km, sure he'll be able to canvas that in a jiffy .
Petition it as exploit (and submit a bugreport), give as much detail as you possibly can and ask for it to be looked at by the seniors right off the bat. If nothing else, it should be possible to code the deadspaces to cycle regardless of presence if all spawns have been dealt with.
|
Tradew1nd
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:21:00 -
[5]
about the only reasonable solution game wise I was able to come up with would have been to use the old titan doomsday to sweep the grid, but that doesn't exist anymore (and would be incredibly impractical)
also, bait only works if the fish bite.
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:30:00 -
[6]
Actually, AFK cloaking complaints aside this does sound like a relatively important abuse that needs to find a way to be worked around. Sitting afk cloaked in an anomaly to ensure that it does not respawn is probably not an intended mechanic for warfare... Camping the anomalies and killing people when they show up? Sure. But making it to where they can never spawn is a bit broken IMO.
|
Brosef Fritzl
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:58:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Brosef Fritzl on 13/08/2010 22:01:13 Thats an awesome idea, and well within the mechanics of the game.
When (people who shall not be named :P) used to do this tactic in the 0.0 cosmos plexes to nurse billions out of them virtually risk free, it was confirmed by devs that afk-cloaking in a plex is not an exploit and well within the game mechanics.
You do have a counter btw, its called killing said guy BEFORE he gets into your system-- you just have failed to do that and therefore must pay the price.
so, it only requires 4 cloak capable pilots to effectively kill a level 5 upgrades system-- nice to know.
|
Poena Loveless
Minmatar Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 22:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tradew1nd as has been shown before by CCP, the only things that have ever been ruled exploits are those few tactics that are uncounterable by the actions of another player.
Where was that shown before?
You need to reexamine what is actually an exploit and what just something you just don't like. Are they modifying their client creating an advantage? Are they utilizing bugs in the software to gain an unfair advantage? From your description, it appears as though you agree that what they are doing is well within the mechanics of the game, so protesting it as a exploit is misguided at best.
Using that logic, I would assert that people warping into a control tower's force field to become untargetable are exploiting since they are taking away my ability to kill them.
Originally by: Tradew1nd as it very much goes against the principles eve is built on
Eve is conflict. Be it direct combat, or passive (like market pvp, or denial of economic gains in this case). Seems to me its well within the bounds of Eve's principles.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |