|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
5
   |
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Most of nullsec is controlled by sov holding alliances. This means I-hubs can be put up and cynojammers installed.
While this at least ensures that you cannot get dropped by a titan bridge, you can still suddenly be face to face with 20 stealthbombers and an invisible battleship.
I personally think making cynojammers prevent ANY type of cyno would be the best and easiest "solution".
If they did that, I think less people would be so strongly against removing local.
In general I see alot of talk about nullsec being the lawless part of EVE where monsters lurk. I dont think I understand this. Yes, CONCORD wont come help you, and neither will the gallente navy.
However we hold SOV out here, we pay CONCORD to hold it, and technically we are (or at least shouldbe) as much the overlords of our own starsystems as the Gallente Federation etc. etc. is.
What I would like are more tools to upgrade our systems and make them more secure for our pilots. I-hub upgrades are the most obvious choice. |
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:This is a bad idea. Too much safety means it's easier for null alliances to "entrench" themselves in their space. making it even harder to remove people from their space doesn't mean more fighting (and fighting is good for the EVE economy), it means less as people say "blah, why bother".
Look a the current conflict, which was delayed by MONTHS because CFC didn't want to grind Sov. Allowing alliances to make their space too safe would just delay conflicts even further. If anything EVE needs easier sov mechanics, not harder.
Right now null sec is kinda like World War Two in space, doing what you suggest (allowing a form of "entrenching" or digging in for more safety") sounds good to the individual pilot, but would be terrible for the game. it would turn it into World War ONE in space.
We have thousands of tools (starting with our own brains and the ships of our buddies) to keep us safe in null, tools that most people don't even use (I'm serious, I'm the only one I know who rats in a Venture with assigned fighters). People should use and exhaust those tools before asking for more tools (ie more automated features).
Its the effort involved that bugs me. It takes almost no effort at all (apart from the skilltraining ofc) to jump in your cloaky ship, fly to some system, and then just sit there. The locals HAVE to react to you somehow, it would be foolish not to. Now make the effort needed to constantly disrupt a system, somewhat comparable with the effort needed to try to counter it and I would be a happier camper.
And no. I do not consider duallogging a valid counter.
|
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 18:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
ah bollocks. I had a wall of text incoming, but meh. This is getting bothersome.
As someone said much earlier in this thread. This is not an issue that will end with happy faces all over the board. More than likely the opposite will happen. I do not think we can ever come to any agreement as to what is too easy/too hard to accomplish ingame.
But for the record I STILL do not consider dualloggin a valid tactic for anything. Certainly not if its supposed to be a required tactic if you want to live in nullsec.
Id love for a CCP employee to come tell me that that is indeed the intention with the game. But until that happens I will remain firm in the belief I should be able to accomplish my goals with just one account. |
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 19:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because it completely breaks the gameplay of one third of the game's systems and because it's in response to something that is not a problem.
A hostile pilot in one of my home systems is ALWAYS a problem. |
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Onomerous wrote:Eeio wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it completely breaks the gameplay of one third of the game's systems and because it's in response to something that is not a problem.
A hostile pilot in one of my home systems is ALWAYS a problem. You like to PVP? Then use the cloaker to your advantage... bait him with a PVE'er. When you say home system, I would suspect you have more than 1 or 2 other people with you? You do have options especially in your HOME system!! What options? They can't do anything docked/pos'ed up and unwilling to come out.
Oh so many assumptions being made in this thread.
In any case I was pointing out that I would never just ignore a hostile if he was sitting in a homesystem.
|
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Its still interesting how the rhetoric here goes.
I actually felt Jenn and Tippia contributed with valid arguments.
But reading these last few pages and the constant increasing namecalling has sadly made me decide to ignore everything you say.
Behave, or become irrelevant. |
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:Kijo Rikki wrote:They can be both, because to the risk averse and those unwilling to adapt, it has an effect, but to those who are more daring or simply know how to deal with it, it has very little if any affect at all. It's all perspective, and the bottom line is an afk cloak physically has zero effect, and has the potential to have a mental effect. You may be on to something, but the statements are still at odds: neither implied a dependency on perspective. Both were absolute statements. I'm hoping one or both of them will revise their statements. I'm also hoping to get past the absolute pronouncements in this thread (not just theirs) and into the reasoning behind them. What I suspect is closer to an absolutely true statement is this combination of facts: 1. an AFK cloaked ship is indistinguishable from an actively piloted cloaked ship 2. an actively piloted cloaked ship piloted by a non-blue pilot is most likely up to no good  3. the first indicator that the pilot of a cloaked ship is active and not AFK is when they uncloak to execute their plan 4. the active pilot of a cloaked ship dictates the time and place of the encounter; the "recipient" of the event has no opportunity to dictate to the pilot of the cloaked ship the time of the encounter (short of "never", i.e. dock up) and limited opportunity to dictate the place. MDD
Im still waiting for these people to come up with some proper replies to this thread. They keep advocating well thought through suggestions and observations, and these points are still at the core of the whole problem.
And still havent been adressed.
Quote:Also, as has also been explained already, unlike AFK mining (which artificially skews the entire economy of the entire game), AFK cloaking doesn't actually do anything. Finally, I suppose you can dig out some support for that claim that there is any kind of correlation between pro-AFK-cloaking and anti-AFK-miningGǪ?
You know, one could argue that afk mining in itself does nothing as well. Refining your ore and then selling it or building something with it, will.
In anycase, I just noticed that other thread where someone wants to pay new players ISK every month, if they are willing to go camp a designated nullsec system whenever they are offline.
Surely thats making ISK while being afk 
|
Eeio
Andeby Inc
Darkspawn.
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 13:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Stop making assumptions about how everyone else feels already.
Quote: If you expect to be able to solo PVE in a null sec system without support, without a plan for rescue or defense and without properly fitting your ship to survive such encounters, then the primary fault is yours to begin with. EVE Online isn't won in space, it's one before you undock.
Nobody thinks this. What do you think we are (Wait, thats actually quite obvious by all the accusations you keep throwing out)
You are the only person here thats talking about doing solo work in null. You just automatically assume thats what we are all talking about here. |
|
|
| |
|