|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Robert Caldera
   |
Posted - 2011.01.02 11:05:00 -
[1]
another f*ggot whining about cloak mechanics.
Cloak is fine, AFK cloak is fine, camping systems AFK is fine, stopping system activities AFK is just your fault having no balls for baiting/killing them.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 14:50:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
And why is it that only one side is required to have an "effective set of defensive procedures"? Why is it only one side needs to have a "standing defense fleet"? Why is it that only one side is required to "have pilots willing to guard" and ready to drop everything at a moment's notice while the AFK cloaker need not be concerned about any of this?
they arent required to do anything. They are only required if they want do some specific things like ratting and such; but they dont have to... If they want, they should have the efforts, not the guy sitting im some system afk cloaked.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 19:36:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 04/01/2011 19:41:45
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
If they don't, they die. It's as simple as that. Don't get me wrong, it should be this way.
yeah, if they jew sanctums. But they dont have to do that, they can go for different activities.
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
And my issue isn't with players having to put up defenses to survive in 0.0.
an afk cloaker does.. he has a cloak, which was intended exactly for defence purposes.
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
The issue I take is with players that are able to go out hunting, set up cynos, have systems on their toes while they themselves need not to be concerned about risk to themselves. Hell, there's a thread somewhere here where an AFK cloaker admits he's watching TV and reading a book in the middle of 0.0 where it's supposed to be hostile, all the while collecting information on a system and having people wonder whether a cyno will go off or not.
it IS hostile for him, for this reason he has cloak.
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
What would you tell a miner that demands to be able to safely read a book or watch TV in 0.0 while mining?
no but the guy who afk cloaks isnt safe as well as soon as he drops cloak for doing anything of harm.
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tell me, what worries does the cloaker have?
should he?? He's cloaked after all...
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 00:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 05/01/2011 00:26:28
deep 0.0 is already too safe. Limiting cloakers in their security in form of fuel or some sh*t would worsen the situation in a large scale. The carebears will simply sit out any threat until the cloaker runs out of fuel and go ahead with their business afterwards.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 12:00:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Warren Wagner
The idea is not to discourge cloaking in the system, it is to limit the value of their disruption.
I love people requesting a nerf and disclaiming negative impacts in one sentence.
|
|
|
| |
|