Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1104
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 20:18:10 -
[4951] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Jerghul wrote: But I am reading your post to mean you accept that no pilot in null-sec should be
1. Undocked 2. In hostile space 3. Afk 4. Safe
I know what you're trying to do. I too started off this thread on that foot; yet along the way I have come to regard cloaked as safe. Sure I may be undocked but I can't refit, can't make ISK or mine roids. My only power is to look around, and I paid for that power with a highslot, CPU, increased targeting delay, reduced gank and tank. If you ask the question black-and-white, I'd have to say "no". You can be undocked, in hostile space, and safe. Ain't nobody's business if I'm AFK or not. What I cannot do, is be all those things and actively participate. For example, you get the exact same list (undocked, in hostile space, afk and safe) after performing a logoff. Or similarly, one could raise the very same argument demanding every player to either log off in a station/POS or leave their ship in space where it was when the player logged off. I have already accepted changes are coming though - so hammering on what is current is not advancing the cause. But being undocked, in hostile space, afk, safe AND unable to do 'stuff' is fine by me. I'd even go further and state such is the basis for guerillia warfare: you are forced to deal with it if and when the cloaker chooses. It is his prerogative; the entire line of ships is balanced around this function. It is what they are supposed to do. It is okay for a Rupture to be good at blowing stuff up; it is okay for an Exhumer to mine more roids than my Rupture can; and it is okay for a stealth recon to have the combat initiative. The only thing separating the AFK camper and any other vessel undocked behind enemy lines yet perfectly safe, is that the camper is logged in. That's the great crime he committed. He can watch you and you can't watch him. It's apparently quite infuriating, but "unacceptable"? Not at all. For any other ship it would be, but not for recons. Same as it is acceptable for a covops to scan down 46 signatures from behind the safety of his cloak -- he's merely doing his job. There is a "general principle", sure -- but it does not apply to ships specifically designed for and pre-nerfed around the purpose.
You are attempting the false equivalence of a module and stations, and for some reason logged off and in space. Someone logged off is truely harmless.
My own list is actually smaller, you should not be both :
1. Undocked (or in a POS) 2. Safe
AFK, location of space, and other factors do not apply. If you are in space you are vulnerable to player interaction. That condition is irrespective of the presence of other players in space with you.
I am ok with this being contingent on a barrier of entry, like specialized hulls or equipment, but outright immunity should not be an option.
It's not ok that the cloak provides 100% safety while the recon scans every signiture in the solar system. Just like a ship good at blowing stuff up has to consider tank and/or logi backup to continually do that job, so should a recon need do more than simply activate his cloak to do his job.
There is literally nothing else like a cloak in evr, that allows and enables you to take action against your enemy with nothing they can do about it but surrender or just endure it. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 20:25:09 -
[4952] - Quote
Mike I am actually covering all contingencies. Ships are semi-safe in non-hostile (hisec), and I do think that cloaky player action should be able to counter long range cloaking attempts (by warping off and forcing scanning to restart for example).
I categorically dismissed linking docked safety to degrees of undocked safety a number of times.
Brokk Its not fine by me. 4/4 cannot reasonably apply. It does not even apply in hisec (afk auto piloted ships are given vulnerability windows prior to jumping gates).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4153
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 20:38:09 -
[4953] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Wow right over one's head! The point of this post was to show there is a way to determine "AFKness". If you assess a high probability of being AFK, then you ARE NOT VULNERABLE.
Pull your head out dude. HTFU, do something to help yourself vs. whining to the Devs.
Oh, and you can do a similar process for assessing the probability he'll be AFK for say the next 2, 3, 4 hours.
It is called Bayesian decision theory/learning. Your spam filter probably works the same way.
No... That's like saying it's perfectly safe to play Russian Roulette just because the last 5 shots didn't kill anyone. Abandoning the space isn't dealing with the camper. No one is asking for a reduction in risk to just be handed over. The ability to contest control of the space, however, should be an active thing, not a passive default for fitting a cloak. Nothing you have said excuses the fact that the cloaked camper is under zero risk while I am actively trying to hunt him down. He remains totally safe regardless of any possible action I can take for as long as he wishes. It does not matter what else I may do when he is not there. I am perfectly willing to fight to control the space. What I am not willing to do is tolerate his presence, and it is not a balanced mechanic that allows him to be 100% safe while I hunt him but I have to be completely vulnerable while he hunts me.
Not at all. That is a stupid comparison in fact. The probability of the bullet being in the chamber given five previous trials with no shot is 1.
Here that analogy is wrong in that the player never HAS to be ATK even in his prime time. You really are displaying a lack of understanding of probability theory here.
Further, I am not suggesting you leave the system to rat next door but to determine if the camper is AFK or not. Once you determine if he is not and you evaluate the probability of him being AFK for a period of time then you can quite possibly rat in system.
Moreover, if he is AFK the space is not at all contested.
That bit about not tolerating his presence says alot. You are too risk averse for NS. In fact, I noted you are almost surely loss averse meaning you'll be much happier in HS.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4153
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 20:59:51 -
[4954] - Quote
Further, a cloaked ship at a safe is absolutely safe....but so is any ratter. Because cloaks do zero DPS. He is safe, you are safe. Every post you have made arguing this point revolves around the possibility that he may not be AFK and that he may attack at his leisure. This is where determining if he is AFK or not comes in. If you can asses a high probability he is AFK the your risk is commensuratly lower as well.
Future structures may allow finding cloaked ships, but at the same time intel and local in particular need to also be vulnerable as well. Insisting one side face additional risk while you do not is unreasonable. Especially given the advantage local gives against active hunters.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4153
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 21:40:34 -
[4955] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:I heard suggestions to:
Abandon the Space---camper not dealt with.
Provide Escorts for every last miner in space---camper not dealt with
Fly Suicidal--- Camper not dealt with, though he is entertained.
What I don't see is a single way to do anything to that camper against his will, regardless of how much effort is put in. That's what we call immune.
No, no, and no.
Moving one system over is not "abandoning the space" anymore than it is abandoning space to go on deployment.
Escort fleet? Please point to a post that has the words 'escort' and 'feet' in it. What...you can't. Gee, strawman much?
Fly suicidal? Again, point to a post indicating that one fly in a suicidal manner.
Next batch of strawmen...?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4153
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 21:42:18 -
[4956] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Right. Because you can't.
He can't deal with your self-serving nonsense, false dichotomies, etc.? Well...why should he deal with stuff that is, when you get right down to it, is dishonest?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 22:02:44 -
[4957] - Quote
Techos Its not about mike, its about you.
Why should a pilot be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe?
There is no reasonable justification, so that 4/4 combination is gone as soon as the developers get around to it.
You can whine about what "compensation" you think you should get for being afk...and we get to laugh at your whining.
So shoot:
What compensation do you think you have the right to demand?
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
159
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 22:24:16 -
[4958] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote: There is literally nothing else like a cloak in eve, that allows and enables you to take action against your enemy with nothing they can do about it but surrender or just endure it.
Exactly. That's also the beauty of it. I'm sure we'll manage whatever CCP comes up with, but this is indeed the one true guerillia module. It gives you the power to pick your fights; to shoot first. Sucks to be the other guy, for sure -- but I have the feeling the problem is somewhat exaggerated.
Perhaps not my most valuable contribution to this thread, but still worth noting... I'm surprised nobody complains about non-AFK cloakers for they gain the exact same benefit.
Seems like it only gets tedious after prolonged duration, and that's (imho of course) because people are okay to wait it out for a little while, but they do not want to make structural changes to the way they go about their business.
I do like the way you can threaten a system with a decoy while the bulk of your power is elsewhere. And I do like the a-symmetic character of sneaking a hit-and-run fleet behind enemy lines. Because sometimes the enemy has far greater number than you do and you'd still like to come out and play. Without recons, or with scannable cloaks, you're going to have real difficulties threatening the Big Guys; and you know what? They'll get bored to tears.
From a tyrannical empire-building point of view absolute security may sound marvellous; but having to worry about things and having to put up home defense fleets is part of the fun.
Yeah I admit, it must get really annoying when the same guy is sitting there, undoubtedly AFK, for weeks on end. But that's all it really is: a nuissance. I pity the guy wasting a perfectly good toon just sitting there, more than I pity the guy who doesn't dare to undock because of him. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 22:35:45 -
[4959] - Quote
Brokk None of the upsides you mentioned are touched by hitting the 4/4. The only criteria a cloaky camper has to meet to be safe is to be at his computer.
Plan B for dealing with afk cloaky campers is blueballing them (plan A is making it hard for backup ships to reach core PvE systems as mentioned. Doing that means they will not show up at all). Undocking is counterproductive. Just wait them out and they will leave after a few weeks. Game play at its finest to counter AFK pilots by waiting until they get bored.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
160
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 22:59:16 -
[4960] - Quote
Well, that depends on how exactly they intend to implement the scanning of cloaked ships, and whether or not you'll get an exact fix on a location or more like 'somewhere nearby'.
Undocking is only counterproductive if you have no Leeroy Jenkins in your blood. Otherwise, I find it quite entertaining :-) Yes I lost my Scythe Fleet Issue to a Loki. But hey! I also shot a Tengu Or are we supposed to only pick fights we know beforehand we'll win?
Oh well. I'll leave you guys to the debate. Until CCP lifts a tip of the veil, we don't really know anything. Unless one of you knows something I don't? |
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:07:58 -
[4961] - Quote
Brokk We can assume that the same things you do to not get caught by normal combat probes also apply to enhanced probes.
Its counter productive from an alliance-corp perspective. They lay down the law in nullsec. If you don't get safe in a PvE ship, then you can fast find yourself with 24 hours warning to pack up and leave. Which is a huge hassle.
We should only pick fights in pvp ships tends to be the ironclad law. Winning or losing is not important as long as you are fitted for bear.
Nah, no one knows anything that has not been discussed (though many still do not know things we have discussed).
The days of undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe are neigh. That is the only thing we know for sure.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15572
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:13:55 -
[4962] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Karous is actually supporting that he should be able to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and immune to attack.
No, I'm suggesting that you think such a thing is true is ludicrous, and that you're both self serving losers trying to get rid of any uncertainty in your gameplay.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:18:29 -
[4963] - Quote
Karous Then you are fine with only 3/4 being true.
Which would make this no longer about you. Though the thread topic is still not about mike.
Though somehow I feel it still is about you (you might for example think that the risk of being decloaked when at a random spot in a system "proves" that cloaked ships are not invulnerable...or other such nonsense).
Edit Those who want no risk in their game play pilot afk cloaky campers or mine moon goo. You need never lose a ship in nullsec doing either.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15572
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:27:52 -
[4964] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Karous Which would make this no longer about you.
It's never been about me. The entire thread is about people like you, people who claim that tears about something equates to the mechanic being broken.
It doesn't.
The game is not broken because you lose. The game is not broken because you can't have your unbalanced isk printing machine at the same time as being perfectly safe. The game is not broken because risk vs reward applies to your obscene farming.
And the game is not broken because cloaking devices function as they are supposed to.
Get right or get gone. If you can't deal with other people in local, then you don't belong in nullsec.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:30:21 -
[4965] - Quote
I find your sense of entitlement lulzy.
This is about you, friend. And anyone like you that feels they have some divine right to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe.
Sorry bro, but that is a no go.
But weep your tears on how the devs are going to break the game and feed our sense of merriment.
Lulz.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15572
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:31:54 -
[4966] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:I find your sense of entitlement lulzy.
And you're projecting like Supreme Leader Snoke.
Quote: And anyone like you that feels they have some divine right to be undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe.
So, not me, but just you two?
Because that's what you're both arguing for here, and Mike's even admitted it more than once. The right to rat without any uncertainty or risk whatsoever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:45:38 -
[4967] - Quote
Karous Look, I know you suck at pvp just by the way you dont grasp that you have to treat potential victims with respect to encourage them to keep undocking. So I get that you see afk cloaky camping as the only way you can get involved. If I can make a suggestion: Stop sucking at pvp so much.
The Affluenza sense of entitlement is just ludicrous.
And this thread topic is about you. Its about afk cloaky camping, or the practice being undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe.
Its not about Mike. Its about you.
Its over, friend.
Why not scoot over to reddit and try to add some actual proper tactics to your otherwise empty toolkit?
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
160
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 23:47:19 -
[4968] - Quote
Jerghul wrote: We can assume that the same things you do to not get caught by normal combat probes also apply to enhanced probes.
That would be regrettable. Having to bounce between safes is not my idea of stealth, and it'd utterly screw non-covops of any kind. I do hope CCP reconsiders the mechanic towards vague indications, rather than pinpoint probes..... But yea, we'll see. No use panicing just yet.
Jerghul wrote: Its counter productive from an alliance-corp perspective. They lay down the law in nullsec. If you don't get safe in a PvE ship, then you can fast find yourself with 24 hours warning to pack up and leave. Which is a huge hassle.
Absolutely! Remember my post earlier, about target delays and DScanning? If despite that you still get caught - repeatedly I should add - I can totally understand those people get kicked. Rightly so.
Jerghul wrote: We should only pick fights in pvp ships tends to be the ironclad law. Winning or losing is not important as long as you are fitted for bear.
Pretty much why even when PvE'ing, Teckos, Mag's, (not to mention The Wraithguard as a whole) urge Mike to fit for bear. Because the bear is real It's ... part of the fun in NS. For some, that is. No such thing as pure PvE -- that's what HS is for. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4157
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 02:24:17 -
[4969] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Jerghul wrote:Karous Which would make this no longer about you. It's never been about me. The entire thread is about people like you, people who claim that tears about something equates to the mechanic being broken. It doesn't. The game is not broken because you lose. The game is not broken because you can't have your unbalanced isk printing machine at the same time as being perfectly safe. The game is not broken because risk vs reward applies to your obscene farming. And the game is not broken because cloaking devices function as they are supposed to. Get right or get gone. If you can't deal with other people in local, then you don't belong in nullsec.
Let me summarize....
The game is not broken because you suck at decision theory and evaluating relative risks.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Mag's
the united
20906
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 03:23:26 -
[4970] - Quote
Tearful wrote:Mag's wrote:Santa. Yes. No, it's been like that since you start posting. Yes, pointing out you and Mike are being dishonest is a thankless task, but I don't mind. Brokk was right. You can't help yourself. Pfft. Grow a pair. Damn, that was a mighty fine retort. I now consider myself well and truly burnt. Remarkable sir. Pray tell, did it take long for you to arrive at such a fine use of the English language?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 04:26:02 -
[4971] - Quote
Teckos Game sucks, does not suck. Who cares?
The only thing we are discussing here is afk cloaky camping and will a pilot be: undocked, in hostile space, afk, and safe.
The answer is: No.
Grow a pair and learn to live with it.
Amuse us with outrageous, entitled demands for compensation until the pair drops.
Mags Yes, not giving people the time of day is a pretty powerful insult. Which I will repeat: Pffft.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 04:41:32 -
[4972] - Quote
Brokk People are not thinking it through.
The only thing getting scanned down really means is you turn cloaky camping into kiting duels. Say you are a cap stable cloaky camper burning at 4000 m/s. What happens if someone gets scans you down where you were? Well, they try to chase you down with a few speed tanked frigates. So you get to kite them for a bit after you voluntarily decloak and when you get bored, or they get close, you warp away. Or warp away immediately if you would rather do that. Or log off for a bit. Whatever. Its not like you were doing anything important in that system that keeps you from logging off. The only fight you get is one you want.
Its not dangerous. Unless you are afk.
Teckos et al want many things. Their wishes are irrelevant.
The only real question is if 4/4 will remain true. The answer to that is no.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
910
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 08:23:37 -
[4973] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Jerghul wrote:Brokk You think bling is the determining factor that separates yolo yokels from good pvp pilots? A cloaked venture is also very risk adverse; small sig and inherent double stabs + low slots...its not something stopped easily even in transit to the camping system.
Flycatcher. Stopped your invasion dead in its tracks. You're welcome. Or an anchored bubble and even better about 6-10 cans spread around the bubble edge to help with de-cloaking (not that ventures can warp while cloaked). And full of DPS ships and lots and lots of dead ventures. Yeah, we nail a bunch of them like that. Got a nemesis just last night, so much for Invulnerability cloaks... Oh yeah... This again. Killing a ship with a cloak mounted is not killing a cloaked ship. Killing a ship capable of cloaking when it can't use the cloak means nothing about the balance of the cloak, especially considering the pilot of the cloaking ship is 100% in control of putting himself in that position. There is no nonconsent there, just bad luck and poor choices. Tell me again how you counter an active cloak out in open space?
I had to manually decloak him. Try harder. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1106
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 08:34:25 -
[4974] - Quote
False, or a lie.
You cannot even get on grid with him unless he allows it, or puts himself on grid with you.
It's entirely up to him, which is the problem. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
910
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 08:39:03 -
[4975] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Jerghul wrote: I don't see how Concord's Pilot ID Service (PIDS) can be removed in any other way than by giving the function an entosis toggle on-off.
The service has to be seen in the context of Concord providing Gate Services to retain coherency.
I live in Angel space. I do not recognise Concord's authority; nor any other empire for that matter There is no good reason to suddenly declare "we forgot how to build a POS - but we can build some medium Citadels now?" either. Nor was there any good reason to one day undock my Hurricane and notice the neut I had there yesterday magically didn't fit anymore. The lore really has to take the backseat here. IF there is a way to make it fit lore-wise, great. If there ain't, too bad. I can however comment on the stargates. The entosisable structure, the Gate, is in fact a replacement for the jump bridge generator. All other "regular" stargates must absolutely remain the way they are. Because of two reasons: for one, entosis mechanics demand notes to spawn in the constellation, which can be tricky if you just cleaved your constellation in half by shutting down the gate. And secondly, if constellation nodes are somehow a non-factor, there is the simple fact you can shut somebody out (or somebody can box you in) and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Provided you actually carry an entosis link - which most people don't - you cannot stop people on the other side from entosising same as they can't stop you. Because, you know, the gate is closed and all. This is a stalemate, or a deadlock. Let's not even get into the absolute security you can have in a system nobody else can enter. So nope: I don't think CCP is going to do that. You can have your own custom-built Gate structures, but you can't mess with the predefined stargates. If you want to close a gate, then camp it. Ha boxing in people while you burn all their **** to the ground. Yeah , no. Not going to happen. CCP would, I am sure, prefer fights to no fights. Bigger fights to smaller fights, and so forth. Fozziesov has reduced those are incentives, IMO. Letting an attacker close stargates and box in an alliances fleets will simplely make it worse. Edit: pretty sure CONCORD operates/built the gates. I shot a gate by accident years ago and took a sec hit. Asked a GM and that was the response.
Stargates will never be closable because it allows the ultimate and final turtle defence. Man I'd rat in a Nyx for lols if the gates were closed.
I'm only part way though catching up on the thread and it's the same sperg from the usual folks. You've got lolgul just attacking posters at random because he is still not cognisant of the mechanics, making up asinine acronyms and generally just yammering gibberish every other post and then you've got Mike "I refuse to do a goddamned thing therefore I demand CCP take action" on the go as well.
Still no reasons offered as to why lowsec survive....Ironically there is a very good reason for this, ones you'd know for sure if you ever set foot out of highsec. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
910
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 08:47:41 -
[4976] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:False, or a lie.
You cannot even get on grid with him unless he allows it, or puts himself on grid with you.
It's entirely up to him, which is the problem.
Pray tell, do you magically arrive on a different grid to everyone else when you use a gate?
FFS man, try and actually play in the part of space you're commenting on.
"Waaaaa it's his choice to jump the gate"
Yup, just like it's your choice to not hope one system over and if he follows you, guess what, you can nail him to the wall.
But doubtless that "effort" is "unreasonable". |
Mag's
the united
20912
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 12:00:47 -
[4977] - Quote
Jarfool wrote:Mags Yes, not giving people the time of day is a pretty powerful insult. Which I will repeat: Pffft. Indeed. Just like your thoughts on this topic, it's done through mental gymnastics only. You spent no time actually posting a reply.
Or is it? Let me into your secret. Is it actually magic and does it grow in pairs?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15582
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 12:34:24 -
[4978] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:False, or a lie.
You cannot even get on grid with him unless he allows it, or puts himself on grid with you.
It's entirely up to him, which is the problem. Pray tell, do you magically arrive on a different grid to everyone else when you use a gate? FFS man, try and actually play in the part of space you're commenting on. "Waaaaa it's his choice to jump the gate" Yup, just like it's your choice to not hope one system over and if he follows you, guess what, you can nail him to the wall. But doubtless that "effort" is "unreasonable".
He really does think that having to do anything more than push one button to defeat the cloaked player is unreasonable.
Having to change his isk printing fit is unreasonable.
Moving is unreasonable.
Baiting the guy is unreasonable.
Having a defense fleet ready is unreasonable.
Ignoring the guy is unreasonable.
Being expected to defend his own gates so no one gets in is unreasonable.
Being at his keyboard is unreasonable.
Apparently, playing the game at all is unreasonable. Hell, a bot would probably be more interesting than Mike is.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Anthar Thebess
1397
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 13:22:17 -
[4979] - Quote
247 pages , no Dev post , nice :)
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4172
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 15:49:05 -
[4980] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Yeah, we nail a bunch of them like that. Got a nemesis just last night, so much for Invulnerability cloaks... Oh yeah... This again. Killing a ship with a cloak mounted is not killing a cloaked ship. Killing a ship capable of cloaking when it can't use the cloak means nothing about the balance of the cloak, especially considering the pilot of the cloaking ship is 100% in control of putting himself in that position. There is no nonconsent there, just bad luck and poor choices. Tell me again how you counter an active cloak out in open space? I had to manually decloak him. Try harder.
Yes, I've been making basically this point with Mike for ages. The cloaked ship is very safe at a safe spot and cloaked. As soon as he moves though he is at risk....
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |