|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Avrien
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
   |
Posted - 2011.06.16 07:25:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Avrien on 16/06/2011 07:37:10
 Originally by: Sieona Savi
Originally by: EnderCapitalG
If a person is AFK, they cannot hurt you.
Stop making these threads.
It would all depend on how you define hurt. But in a sense they are causing me to not venture out and mine or do missions or other null sec releated activities because of his presence. I endevour that we do need to protect our space but since we cannot at present there is not much I can do but to play it safe.
So he is in fact hurting me.
Where I will concede that it keeps me on toes and needing friends to protect me, And if your goal is to get me to protect myself; You cannot remove the ability for me to protect myself. But by making it so I can only have friends around is somewhat limiting. And dare I say limiting to you too.
Unless you goal is to disrupt my null sec operations without any work at all, I donĘt see the point of you fighting against the need for some way to combat afk null sec cloakers. And if you want more interaction and fights and more PvP, then by providing us more ways to interact with you wouldnĘt that just make it LESS carebare? And More MMO and more PvP?
Otherwise I appreciate the response.
I'll qoute from like the 2nd page. The problem with security is to expect it you must reasonably create the same reality that allows you to solo in high sec. that is constant absolute vigilance! If you do not create it do not expect to solo(AKA the same security). The environment needs the same criteria all around. If you want high sec create it in null or go to high sec. literally. To remove afk cloaking in this case would then give you high sec in sovereignty. That is the problem with removing that pressure from you. If you remove it the reality and insecurity of null sec is gone. So maybe you need to think that cloaking is a counter to the potential security and easy soloing of sovereignty and needs to remain. If there are no mechanics to force insecurity there is no insecurity. It's bad enough there are only cloakers to create such a threat. It is just an appropriate reality for a dangerous environment. As someone else said, compensate appropriately and expect and play with others or take the consequences and die solo and take the risk. the game should play evenly in that way. To see if the concept is unbalanced compare the reality it is involved with with the rest of the game and the consequences. then you will get a better idea of what surrounds it and the reasoning or, again, consequences of removing it and what it affects in game. In this case you just want to solo and avoid playing with other and cooperation or needed cooperation and proper dealing of risk in an environment. That is just because everyone is self centered and can't use teamwork well anymore. The environment should have appropriate potentials or it will not be the same environment. This games mechanics are simple enough(like all games) it barely makes the environment dangerous as is. It has like One layer of mechanics per part of the game. You take anything away the game will vanish like a wisp.
to literally want anything less than what it takes in high sec to create security is wrong. That is unbalancing. If anything it's not dangerous enough. It's safe enough being 0.0 compared to 0.5- 1.0 already. So yea you have to expect team work to have any potential safety. That is part of being your own empire. Think for a second what security status represents.
And no having a counter to everything isn't really a good game. It's actually a basic game. If you have 10 to every mechanic you'd have a game with barely room to breath. 8) Hypothetically! God forbid 100's.
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.Thomas Jefferson
|
Avrien
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 07:41:00 -
[2]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Originally by: Mag's
Originally by: t'raq mardon
So you agree that it requires no input from the player in order to remain cloaked but you dont want to openly agree with me so you change the subject.
No, I said to do anything requires input. If they are cloaked and doing nothing, then what is the problem? How is that changing the subject?
You are avoiding answering the question by stating the obvious, that it requires input to do other things. I will restate the question in case you have forgotten. Does it require any input from the player to remain cloaked?
doesn't it?! I thought there was an option to auto repeat though.
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.Thomas Jefferson
|
Avrien
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 04:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Avrien on 21/06/2011 04:22:41
I think he has it backwards. He needs to be thankful the aFK cloaker is there. Then it reminds him to stop soloing in a dangerous envirinment. IN fact it is the environtment doing what it can do . Having someone there. All it does it let you lul off less thinking you can play safely in an unsafe place. Nothing wrong with that. It's actualy safer for you. He could be the opposite of AFK and kill you!
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| |
|