Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 140 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15236
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:56:00 -
[571] - Quote
I sent Nikk and Eve-mail today and Evegate cloaked most of the text.
I demand CCP does something about this ASAP.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
5161
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:35:00 -
[572] - Quote
Since endless docking leads to alot of unwanted gameplay as afk docked in station, I suggest:
1. Make being docked have a cycle. Make each cycle of being docked take more cap then last, so at one point it takes more cap then the regeneration rate.
2. Or stop cap regeneration once docked.
This will make people undock when they run out of cap.
I would suggest max docked time on AFK docked players to be 30 minutes.
Yeah, Im just going to copy paste bad ideas, fix them for spelling and grammar, and replace AFK CLOAKED with AFK DOCKED.
They make more sense this way.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
455
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:25:00 -
[573] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Since endless docking leads to alot of unwanted gameplay as afk docked in station, I suggest:
1. Make being docked have a cycle. Make each cycle of being docked take more cap then last, so at one point it takes more cap then the regeneration rate.
2. Or stop cap regeneration once docked.
This will make people undock when they run out of cap.
I would suggest max docked time on AFK docked players to be 30 minutes.
Yeah, Im just going to copy paste bad ideas, fix them for spelling and grammar, and replace AFK CLOAKED with AFK DOCKED.
They make more sense this way.
You sir, are a man of incredible wit and perspicacity.
|
Nenaudelis LTU
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:35:00 -
[574] - Quote
And if the cloaking device take more and more capa base on the use time ? If the mods is active since 2 minutes the capacitor per cycle will grow up and grow up until the capacitor is empty and decloak the guy.
So if a guy need to scout some celestial or scan, or probe something he could do it as now, but if he want to be afk he must come back every 10 minutes or less to recloak again. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
549
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:11:00 -
[575] - Quote
Nenaudelis LTU wrote:And if the cloaking device take more and more capa base on the use time ? If the mods is active since 2 minutes the capacitor per cycle will grow up and grow up until the capacitor is empty and decloak the guy.
So if a guy need to scout some celestial or scan, or probe something he could do it as now, but if he want to be afk he must come back every 10 minutes or less to recloak again. Why do cloaks need some arbitrary limit on how long they are allowed to operate before they have to give away their presence?
And why is it that you idiots never consider what this does to wormholes before you vomit the same goddamn thing onto the forums over and over again? |
Noisrevbus
471
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:34:00 -
[576] - Quote
This thread is only number three from the top?
It should definately be number one again . |
Lennelluk
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:51:00 -
[577] - Quote
+1 in favor of removing the perma cloaking in systems as it is now.
I am fine having people spy cloaked on a system, but they should be interacting with the game when doing so, and there should some risks involved. In short, players that want to stay cloaked should have a game mechanic to force them to be in the game.
The solution of increasing cap cost when cloaking is my favorite solution, with a time frame of around one hour or so of security before the game pushes you to in the risk zone (add some randomness aspect as to the duration to avoid automatisms..)
|
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
549
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:59:00 -
[578] - Quote
Lennelluk wrote:+1 in favor of removing the perma cloaking in systems as it is now.
I am fine having people spy cloaked on a system, but they should be interacting with the game when doing so, and there should some risks involved. In short, players that want to stay cloaked should have a game mechanic to force them to be in the game.
The solution of increasing cap cost when cloaking is my favorite solution, with a time frame of around one hour or so of security before the game pushes you to in the risk zone (add some randomness aspect as to the duration to avoid automatisms..)
You broke wormholes. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:09:00 -
[579] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Mag's wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Oh gee! A ship designed and classified as a COVERT RECONNAISSANCE ship actually do recon! My world is turned upside down!
I thought it was obvious. To counter enemy intelligence, use your own recon and intelligence.
Yes the name is misleading. It should really be named "Covert Cyno Gank Ship". Or do people actually only use it for recon? Going to extremes to prove a point, is a sure sign of a winning argument. Amiright? Although what that point is, is yet to be determined. The point is this. Covert Ops is over powered by being able to warp while cloaked, cyno AND tackle and in the case of recon also Ewar! Currently the only thing that is at all restricting covert ops from getting out of line is Local. If you change local to delayed or remove it then covert ops will get out of control. http://kb.vergeofcollapse.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_ext_id=1574370004&view=killsThis guy does nothing but fly around in a nemesis or arazu and drop his Nyx on ratting carriers. Even with local he is very successful as you can see. If local was removed or delayed or didn't show cloakers then his fail rate would probably disappear. There are others who do this too. Some use non-covert cloakers in cheap frigs that are only days old and in starter corps. The difference is that they'll plant them in a system and let them sit online in space cloaked for a few days until the inhabitants start to get comfortable. Then when they feel the time is right (and get a juicy target on dscan) they'll land on them cyno and the target is hotdropped before he even knows what happened. This would also be a much bigger deal if local was changed. The problem now with cloaked campers is this. If they're in your system, no matter how big or small their ship, its potentially as much force as 100 supers. If you undock and return to business as usual you're suicidal, if you undock in pvp ships then you're just wasting your time. Compared to WH space, the risks in Nullsec are much higher while the rewards are much lower. The only thing nullsec has is extra convenience.
Boo hoo, whine whine
No one fits tackle on a covops. And if they do, you should be able to kill them easily, covops are very squishy and die in seconds with drones. Why are you even ratting with hostiles in system? That's like trying to count all the money in your wallet when you know a thief is looking at you.
I started out days old. But I flew smart. Frankly, you don't have to be smart to avoid covert cloakers. FFS stop whining, and if you have a problem with cloakers, set up countermeasures - bubble gates with cans to decloak, etc etc. But FFS stop whining on the forums for some sort of "easy" mode so you can do your carebear ratting in nullsec.
"How horrible, a covert recon ship made for covert cynos and reconnaissance is actually dropping me while i try to carebear in null! Blasphemy CCP i will now cancel my sub" |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
553
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:21:00 -
[580] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote: Boo hoo, whine whine
No one fits tackle on a covops. And if they do, you should be able to kill them easily, covops are very squishy and die in seconds with drones. Why are you even ratting with hostiles in system? That's like trying to count all the money in your wallet when you know a thief is looking at you.
I started out days old. But I flew smart. Frankly, you don't have to be smart to avoid covert cloakers. FFS stop whining, and if you have a problem with cloakers, set up countermeasures - bubble gates with cans to decloak, etc etc. But FFS stop whining on the forums for some sort of "easy" mode so you can do your carebear ratting in nullsec.
"How horrible, a covert recon ship made for covert cynos and reconnaissance is actually dropping me while i try to carebear in null! Blasphemy CCP i will now cancel my sub"
The problem isn't ratting with hostiles in system, it's ratting with a carrier that's dumb. |
|
Kodiii
TalCorp Enterprises Care Factor
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:01:00 -
[581] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Boo hoo, whine whine
No one fits tackle on a covops. And if they do, you should be able to kill them easily, covops are very squishy and die in seconds with drones. Why are you even ratting with hostiles in system? That's like trying to count all the money in your wallet when you know a thief is looking at you.
I started out days old. But I flew smart. Frankly, you don't have to be smart to avoid covert cloakers. FFS stop whining, and if you have a problem with cloakers, set up countermeasures - bubble gates with cans to decloak, etc etc. But FFS stop whining on the forums for some sort of "easy" mode so you can do your carebear ratting in nullsec.
"How horrible, a covert recon ship made for covert cynos and reconnaissance is actually dropping me while i try to carebear in null! Blasphemy CCP i will now cancel my sub"
"Why are you even ratting with hostiles in your system?"
Obviously you don't know what thread you're in, because turns out when there's a possibly active red waiting with a cyno in seemingly every system in your area. Now to that, I know someone like you would say, well move systems! And this is the part where you totally ignore the fact that everyone in system could move their pve/mining assets to the next system over, taking a cumulative decent amount of time. Then the SB spends 2 minutes moving over there and it's the same problem. Do you not see the unbalanced action vs. reaction of the two sides in this? One character (requiring only a few weeks of training and can be a single character alt) can disrupt entire systems into moving and then simply disrupt them again with minimal effort and whilst doing this remain completely safe. This would be all well and good unless you look at all the other balancing in the game. When something is high reward (i.e. disrupting an entire system), it needs to be high risk.
pve/mining in low/null sec is high reward -> can be ganked by cynos and fast ships (also, 10second system scanner is now at 0 seconds btw) titans can one shot a dread -> slow as balls and need an entire support fleet to be effective at the least dreads are great damage for the isk spent -> can't move while in siege mod and can be one shot by a titan wormholes are insane moneymaking tools -> can't see anyone in local
Yet, 23 hour logged in cloaky -> 30 million isk, 2 weeks training, reward is almost infinite.
"bubble gates with cans to decloak"
So that the single stealth bomber can sneak through just once and then the bubbles act as a blockade for friendly forces for him to use? .You do realise how many cans you have to put on a gate to completely, not to mention someone has to sit there 24 hours a day waiting for them to come in, while the cloaky only has to come in once and he can remain there almost indefinitely choosing when he wants to actually interact with players on his own terms.
The funny thing about these threads is that while so many against the anti-cloaky threads are saying the carebears are whining and harden up. Yet it seems to me that people against balancing in this case are pretty damn defensive about it too. I wonder why? Could it be that they may be set to lose their easiest way to get kills, disrupt systems and just troll.
Everyone knows eve is a game where harden the **** up is a common motto. But it's not always there 100% of the time. Sometimes people need to have a little bit of understanding of balancing issues from a neutral standpoint. I'm sure everyone who owned a titan didn't want the DD to be nerfed. Yet they did it anyway. And that's why they aren't used nearly as much as supercarriers these days. Then people had problems with supercarriers, so they nerfed them too. Just because there are people like some of you guys in this thread denying a problem, doesn't mean there isn't one. It might just mean that you're on the opposite side of it. I'm sure if something turned a legitimate playing style of yours into having to basically work a full time job just to evade a few newbie level skillpoint players, you would have a whinge too. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:27:00 -
[582] - Quote
Kodiii wrote: Yet, 23 hour logged in cloaky -> 30 million isk, 2 weeks training, reward is almost infinite.
If he's earning money while afk You should probalby report him, botting is not allowed. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Beckett Firesnake
Babylon Knights Renegades Council
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:40:00 -
[583] - Quote
It is funny to see the number of post on this subject and the deny that there is a problem. With the massive use of bombers in the TEST vs Goon war due to the Black Ops prejection range increase, the Cloaky problem have taken a new scale.
I continue to think that something should be done about this. To me, each module should have his countermeasure. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:58:00 -
[584] - Quote
Beckett Firesnake wrote:It is funny to see the number of post on this subject and the deny that there is a problem. With the massive use of bombers in the TEST vs Goon war due to the Black Ops prejection range increase, the Cloaky problem have taken a new scale.
I continue to think that something should be done about this. To me, each module should have his countermeasure.
Huh, they're using massive numbers of bombers now.... o_O
How could Goonswarm ever defend itself against such a devious device. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2133
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:15:00 -
[585] - Quote
My apology if this sounds harsh, but honesty can sometimes seem unkind.
Kodiii wrote:"Why are you even ratting with hostiles in your system?"
Obviously you don't know what thread you're in, because turns out when there's a possibly active red waiting with a cyno in seemingly every system in your area. Now to that, I know someone like you would say, well move systems! And this is the part where you totally ignore the fact that everyone in system could move their pve/mining assets to the next system over, taking a cumulative decent amount of time. Then the SB spends 2 minutes moving over there and it's the same problem. Do you even listen to yourself?
It's not AFK if it followed you, get your fighting ships ready. Tell them to wear protection, because the bomber may have brought CY(no) Jelly...
Kodiii wrote: Do you not see the unbalanced action vs. reaction of the two sides in this? One character (requiring only a few weeks of training and can be a single character alt) can disrupt entire systems into moving and then simply disrupt them again with minimal effort and whilst doing this remain completely safe. This would be all well and good unless you look at all the other balancing in the game. When something is high reward (i.e. disrupting an entire system), it needs to be high risk. If all you are worried about is a character requiring only a few weeks worth of training, I see no sympathy coming your way anytime soon.
Now, if they have a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat... that is different. Fight fire with fire! Get a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat.
If you are seriously expecting this bomber to have that kind of backup, and yet not seeing a need on your own part to match his commitment, where do you get the nerve to complain about it with any expectation of sympathy?
Oh no, I am playing a PvP MMO, and several players showed up to fight me, or might show up to fight me. This must be unbalanced, please fix it.
P.S.: I have no intention of moving to an area that supports PvE play with less support, I want to be in the area established for team effort, while complaining about someone using that same team effort against me. And give me a cookie too. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:07:00 -
[586] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: If all you are worried about is a character requiring only a few weeks worth of training, I see no sympathy coming your way anytime soon.
Now, if they have a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat... that is different. Fight fire with fire! Get a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat.
If you are seriously expecting this bomber to have that kind of backup, and yet not seeing a need on your own part to match his commitment, where do you get the nerve to complain about it with any expectation of sympathy?
I really do wonder if you have ever been to null, honestly.
The few weeks training gives cyno power to a character to disguise the people he cynos in. Few weeks of training characters are in cloaky frigs are obviously cyno alts to people with long play time characters.
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
There is no way to match their commitment unless you have a spy in their group giving you up to date information. Which I would doubt many if any renters would have.
I know you do understand what all the hubub is all about. And I know you are for changing certain things to help aleviate the strain on both sides. There's no reason to counter argue everyone against cloaking with ignortance level reasoning.
Unless of course its just to shamelessly bump your thread I guess. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
556
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:11:00 -
[587] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
I know you do understand what all the hubub is all about. And I know you are for changing certain things to help aleviate the strain on both sides. There's no reason to counter argue everyone against cloaking with ignortance level reasoning.
Sorry sir, but you are going to have to demonstrate how his arguments are "ignorance level reasoning". Just saying they are won't make it so. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2134
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:19:00 -
[588] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: If all you are worried about is a character requiring only a few weeks worth of training, I see no sympathy coming your way anytime soon.
Now, if they have a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat... that is different. Fight fire with fire! Get a fleet of expensive ships piloted by a group of players all waiting on a cue to begin combat.
If you are seriously expecting this bomber to have that kind of backup, and yet not seeing a need on your own part to match his commitment, where do you get the nerve to complain about it with any expectation of sympathy?
I really do wonder if you have ever been to null, honestly. The few weeks training gives cyno power to a character to disguise the people he cynos in. Few weeks of training characters are in cloaky frigs are obviously cyno alts to people with long play time characters. Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost. There is no way to match their commitment unless you have a spy in their group giving you up to date information. Which I would doubt many if any renters would have. I know you do understand what all the hubub is all about. And I know you are for changing certain things to help aleviate the strain on both sides. There's no reason to counter argue everyone against cloaking with ignortance level reasoning. Unless of course its just to shamelessly bump your thread I guess. Are you being funny on purpose?
Of course the hunter cannot show their true strength in local, don't be ridiculous! They are TRYING to bait out the PvE targets.
This means they can't use multiple ships. Too obvious and not going to happen. They are even hesitant to use an alt that is too well known as a cyno agent, since this tips off targets what happens.
They want the PvE pilots to take a chance on them being harmless, and risk being active in the system.
This guy can see local too, he knows when someone is online. When he sees a target name in local, he knows to make patrols of probable activity areas.
Perversely, AFK Docking and AFK POS'ing is a sound tactic to numb this fellow to YOUR presence, as he may quit checking on you if he sees you are always online according to local.
It works both ways.
Logic and facts do not equate to ignorance. Ignoring them, however, quite specifically does .
And no, it's not even my thread, although I do understand and support it's intent. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:33:00 -
[589] - Quote
Kodiii wrote:
Yet, 23 hour logged in cloaky -> 30 million isk, 2 weeks training, reward is almost infinite.
Please explicate for us, these nearly infinite rewards.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:36:00 -
[590] - Quote
Beckett Firesnake wrote:It is funny to see the number of post on this subject and the deny that there is a problem. With the massive use of bombers in the TEST vs Goon war due to the Black Ops prejection range increase, the Cloaky problem have taken a new scale.
I continue to think that something should be done about this. To me, each module should have his countermeasure.
Now you are whining about active players using cloaked ships?
Christ you people are simply pathetic and should uninstall the game.
Active players using a cloak: Bad. In active players using a cloak: Bad. Cloaks: Bad.
You guys should be perma-banned if you even install such a module on any ship. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:38:00 -
[591] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
Yeah, counter hot-dropping never ever happens.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1348
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:56:00 -
[592] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
Wait, you mean if you fly in a fleet your chances of being hot dropped decreases proportionally? No way give this man a medal he figured it out!! Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:56:00 -
[593] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
Yeah, counter hot-dropping never ever happens. Counter blops dropping never does. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
559
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 03:21:00 -
[594] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
Yeah, counter hot-dropping never ever happens. Counter blops dropping never does. Yes it does. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:05:00 -
[595] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Countering their fleet with an expensive fleet of your own is impossible. They won't fight head to head. They will only drop on a target kill it and then jump back out before anyone would be able to engage them with a fleet of any size or cost.
Yeah, counter hot-dropping never ever happens. Counter blops dropping never does. Yes it does.
**Ah-chum**
When blobbing blobs blob blobs, blobs blob blobbing blobs. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Beckett Firesnake
Babylon Knights Renegades Council
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:30:00 -
[596] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Beckett Firesnake wrote:It is funny to see the number of post on this subject and the deny that there is a problem. With the massive use of bombers in the TEST vs Goon war due to the Black Ops prejection range increase, the Cloaky problem have taken a new scale.
I continue to think that something should be done about this. To me, each module should have his countermeasure. Now you are whining about active players using cloaked ships? Christ you people are simply pathetic and should uninstall the game. Active players using a cloak: Bad. In active players using a cloak: Bad. Cloaks: Bad. You guys should be perma-banned if you even install such a module on any ship.
You are right, the biggest problem is the AFK cloaky guys.
There are solutions for the big bomber fleets not a lot, not perfect. It isdifficult but something can be done. It is not the same for an AFK guy that let his computer running 24/24 and that you cannot find at all. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:36:00 -
[597] - Quote
Beckett Firesnake wrote: You are right, the biggest problem is the AFK cloaky guys.
There are solutions for the big bomber fleets not a lot, not perfect. It isdifficult but something can be done. It is not the same for an AFK guy that let his computer running 24/24 and that you cannot find at all.
Yeah, but that guy is afk.
You could always start a thread about ppl getting an afk flag to their portrait after 10 minutes of inactivity.
But as I said in a previous post, once that happens people will complain that they have no way of knowing if the guy is just faking inactivity (the really patient kind of person, or those with a laptop to distract themselves from the all encompasing boredom of sitting somewhere and doing nothing) or if the guy really just is afk.
And that's were the real problem begins to surface. People let fear guide their actions, and that will never change, they will find ever new reasons to not undock and complain about one "totally unbalanced" feature or completely unfair style of play that should be removed. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Beckett Firesnake
Babylon Knights Renegades Council
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:44:00 -
[598] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Beckett Firesnake wrote: You are right, the biggest problem is the AFK cloaky guys.
There are solutions for the big bomber fleets not a lot, not perfect. It isdifficult but something can be done. It is not the same for an AFK guy that let his computer running 24/24 and that you cannot find at all.
Yeah, but that guy is afk. You could always start a thread about ppl getting an afk flag to their portrait after 10 minutes of inactivity. But as I said in a previous post, once that happens people will complain that they have no way of knowing if the guy is just faking inactivity (the really patient kind of person, or those with a laptop to distract themselves from the all encompasing boredom of sitting somewhere and doing nothing) or if the guy really just is afk. And that's were the real problem begins to surface. People let fear guide their actions, and that will never change, they will find ever new reasons to not undock and complain about one "totally unbalanced" feature or completely unfair style of play that should be removed.
No I don't fear the cloaky ships, even if somteimes I should. I love Baiting them, but if they are not here it is just a waste of time. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:52:00 -
[599] - Quote
Speak for Yourself...
But then, why do You consider afk cloaking to be a problem while at the same time afk docking is supposed to ok? There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Beckett Firesnake
Babylon Knights Renegades Council
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 08:05:00 -
[600] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Speak for Yourself... But then, why do You consider afk cloaking to be a problem while at the same time afk docking is supposed to ok? EDIT: I just reread Your post. So, You just don't want to work for Your kills anymore? That's what You're trying to tell me? I agree with that. I want bombs with 14AU range 50km Explosion radius, 50k damage and launchable at any site or ship scanned down by my probes.
No I am ok to try to bait a cloaky. He choose to engage or not, I wait and I see. But if he is AFK , it is just a waste of time to wait. If you cannot understand the difference I can't help you. I don't see the link with a bomb with 14AU range. this type of answer is simply clueless.
You always have the same argument: "You guys are carebears, don't fear the cloaky ship and stop whining." . Try to open your mind of a different point of view. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 140 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |