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) |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
842
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:14:19 -
[8401] - Quote
Xcom wrote:This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.
I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced.
I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2556
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:20:01 -
[8402] - Quote
Xcom wrote:This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.
I so much agree with this comment.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian
|
Prince Kobol
2544
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:31:29 -
[8403] - Quote
Xcom wrote:[ This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.
Completely agree. The API kills so many aspects of this game.
If we do have to have it at the very least put in a delay of say 24 - 48 hours.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5571
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:36:31 -
[8404] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:BTW I went to zkillboard and looked up the deaths for covert ops ships for Dec. 8. About 140-150 died in one day.
So much for Xcom's notion of risk free PvE. You'd think a person making such an argument would go look at some of the actual data, but nope. When you are intellectually dishonest and shift your arguments constantly to try and score points....looking at the data is just time consuming and could do violence to your preconceived notions. Small problemon with your numbers. 140 - 150 of how many? I always have a issue with anybody producing numbers without any context. Are these 140 deaths in 140 single engaments or or some in a fleet fight? In what space were these deaths in? How many people were flying covert op ships during that day? Numbers without context are useless.
No, that was not the point I was rebutting. The claim was that cloaks allow for risk free PvE. Risk free means none would die. Zero. Zip. Zilch. The empty set.
However, there are plenty that do die, many of which are fit for exploration so the claim is clearly false.
Now if one were to ask, "Are they too safe?" or "Is there enough risk?" That is very different question and one that is really only capable of being answered by CCP. Xcom cannot answer it. Dracvlad cannot answer it. You cannot answer it. I cannot answer it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5571
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:38:29 -
[8405] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:The question is how many were AFK cloaky campers, most of them were doing exploration at a guess or going through gates, that is Teckos for you.
And here we see extreme intellectual dishonesty from Dracvlad, which of course is to be expected.
I was not responding to a claim about AFK cloaking because AFK cloakers do NOT engage in PvE.
Since I was responding to a claim about PvE and cloaks Dracvlad's response is his usual lying and distorting of the discussion.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
108
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 18:41:55 -
[8406] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails. I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced. I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening. The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5571
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:16:29 -
[8407] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails. I agree with this. I've said from the start if they agree to nerf local, I'm OK with a way to scan down cloaked ships. In the current state of the game, you can't nerf one without nerfing the other, or it won't be balanced. I want killboards to go away completely as well, as they just prevent fights from happening. The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little. I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.
I don't see the problem.
Remove local, give players an in-game means to get it back, continue playing.
Yes, it will likely mean new strategies and ways of doing things, but clearly the status quo is less than desirable. There was a very strong and positive reaction to OA, IIRC, when it was first talked about in a Dev Blog and the associated forum thread.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
49
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:42:32 -
[8408] - Quote
Xcom Removing local is not the issue. Removing access to real time information is however an issue.
I am happy with an EvE Lore perspective that Empire gates broadcast ship and pilot data.
I don't believe the broadcast data has to be "local". The point is that individual players have access to real time information system (tm) any ships that have used an Empire gate in x system within y range. Audio cues would be nice (6 reds entered ab-12 2 jumps away).
With no free information being provided from cynos, player owned gates, log-off traps etc.
This is where I see a role for OAs. They can tie in to the real time information system (tm) and give system specific updates similar to local today. With Empire run OAs in lowsec and highsec to give status quo with today.
Wormholes have to be fixed anyway, so I would look to that space for the introduction of the OAs
Or to put it another way - Lets turn portions of null-sec into the OA heaven some people desire. Its not as if anything is happening there anyway.
==========
It remains a side issue from afk cloaky camping of course. Which has to end. Why is afk anything still a thing in null-sec is the only question that begs that Devs end it.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
329
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:43:19 -
[8409] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.
The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more. Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null? Xcom wrote:Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could. This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails.
Love the energy here. Just one slight problem... All the map statistics and API-endpoints are already delayed. You aren't getting real-time information out of any of them.
Wormholer for life.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5571
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 19:51:25 -
[8410] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:I'm glad I at least understand your logic with that standpoint Wander Prian. I just disagree strongly with it. Although it sounds fair that cloaks do nerf you to the point so that anyone could defend themself against a squishy target like bombers it does make sense to not give any pre warnings. The only problem with that analogy is that most fights never are one on one. There are hot drops and massive fleets followed up after the point.
The pointer just needs to survive the short time before a second point lands. In those situations its more logical to let anyone have some form of advanced warning to have the option to choose to engage or flee. Decloak timers to lock are supposed to be just that but in the case of Recon ships and faction cov-ops where you can tank to a moderate degree and you have ample time to land a point. Ballparks of 6 seconds is the aproximate locktime of more tanky cov-ops recons and SoE ships. If cloaks are supposed to always catch there target null will turn into WS where any fight is spearheaded by a cloaky pointer without local. I really don't know if that is the type of pvp that will even encourage satisfactory pvp for anyone other then the one who engages. At some point even the engage party will get board when noone uses belts any more. Which is why (as I have said multiple times) rat and mine in groups when outside of HS. A dozen rattlesnakes ratting in PvP fits are going to be very hard to hot drop. How often do people actually do that in null? Xcom wrote:Not really. The problem is the free intel gathering. If you leave that out then you can justify cloaks yes. But free intel gathering is to valuable to not put a label on it and say its "intended" so we should just leave it as is. So you're against local chat and killboards as well? If so, then we can talk. Those give more free intel than cloaks ever could. This game gives way to much info out. The map even shows ship counts to accurate numbers throughout eve. Local broadcasts numbers of pilots that was promised to be replaced with a more overview alike mechanic. Killboards, other player made maps, websites and other external tools that turns this game into a spreadsheet rather then a game. I do agree that some tools help make life easier but at some point you start losing the immersion. Most battles are lopsided and way to planned out. Nothing in eve is encounter based rather then strategically planned and most times when you die your made fun of. If we had more unpredictable tools in eve players might have actually start to play the game rather then camp enemy systems to whore for killmails. Love the energy here. Just one slight problem... All the map statistics and API-endpoints are already delayed. You aren't getting real-time information out of any of them.
So, let me recap....
Local, which gives real time information...it even provides the resident of a system advanced warning when a hostile enters (you'll see him in local before he even loads grid, let alone does anything).
Supposedly this real time information is awesome sauce and removing it will Destroy the GameGäó.
But! But!! Killboards (which are delayed). Dotlan (which is delayed). The in game map (which is delayed).
These are all horrible and must go.
Sorry, I am just sitting here going wait...wut? How much kool aid did you drink to think that is a reasonable position? What that looks like to me is the following: I want to PvE in NS with as much safety as I can get. I don't want my ratting showing up, even if delayed, on Dotlan. I don't want my ratting fits that have died showing up on killboards, even if delayed, so that people can figure out how to blow my ratting ships up even more efficiently. I don't want the in game map, even if delayed, showing hostiles potentially good stalking grounds. I want the people who will do violence to my game time to be blind. But I don't want to be blind, don't you Goddamn dare touch local you bastards!
Somebody who holds this view is clearly pushing an agenda.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
842
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 01:45:39 -
[8411] - Quote
Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here.
We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today.
That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
115
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 02:18:33 -
[8412] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today. That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after.
It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5572
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 06:06:58 -
[8413] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today. That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after. It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions.
I don't think there will need to be a huge issue with the code. Making local delayed should not be that hard. The code for the OA will be new code...again not that hard. It is not like somebody is asking for a rewrite of the POS code (my understanding that code is a complete mess and messing with it would be very bad).
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
50
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 07:55:49 -
[8414] - Quote
Xcom He is proposing an impossible precondition. Its a variant of "You can pry afk cloaky camping out of my cold, dead hands".
NRA tactics for the win :-).
============
Also, ship losses by space type:
Hightsec - Most ship losses. Low/nullsec Wormhole space - Least ship losses.
Wormhole space no doubt needs a OA to help boost population levels in that space.
Fix local where it actually is broken and where nobody lives.
===========
Looks like CCP is more worried about deflation, than inflation. Bounties are increasing come next update.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
116
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 12:16:01 -
[8415] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Xcom wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Xcom wrote:The problem with local is how integrated it has become. I think CCP admittedly said it was an unintended feature that slipped into the game and now gets abused. Sadly by now it will alienate so many players that its removal will be a major major decision that will need some balls, sadly what CCP devs lack. I just want something minor like AFK camping to at least be removed. But apparently even that is resisted as it seams everything is entangled and every alteration is resisted by so many players. This game is old, it needs devs with some gusto to step in and start to shift mechanics around to stir the pot a little.
I guess threads like this one really puts the fear into the devs, probably less constructive when so many rage posts are clogged into one giant thread. I try and play the game as is but from time to time you really get riled up and frustrated that decisions are made at a snails pace and end up back here. We're coming full circle. I think we need to make local in sov null tied to a structure that can be destroyed. If I destroy or disable it, local stops existing, but you can't scan down cloaked ships either. Everything outside of sov null stays as it is today. That beign said, you're right. Most players who live in sov null are so risk averse they would be terrified about not having local. Null is as safe as HS anymore....the only actually challenging parts of the game any more are LS and WHs. Although I agree local needs altered I also believe that most features shouldn't be solidified in a thread of changes. Making local changes your also forced to look into D-scanner and other areas of the game simultaneously. The end result is a massive rewrite of the game core. That given its pointless arguing where to even start. That is why I think that cloaks should be isolated and fixed on there own and hopefully we might see local also changed before or at least soon after. It really is pointless arguing what feature needs looked at first though. Its not like forum posts determine CCPs priority development. Thats why I do find local discussions pointless in a cloak thread, even if its connected it doesn't need to overshadow cloaking discussions. I don't think there will need to be a huge issue with the code. Making local delayed should not be that hard. The code for the OA will be new code...again not that hard. It is not like somebody is asking for a rewrite of the POS code (my understanding that code is a complete mess and messing with it would be very bad). Its more then just new code from what I understand. Either each proposal is taken into consideration with the marketing team and blocked if it reduces population count or accepted if its impact will show more towards favouring growth. Or they are just very careful adding new content and watching statistics to make sure the player base adapts before moving to new mechanics. I have seen in a few smaller MMOs where larger rewrites alienated the player base to mass quit.
Edit: @Jerghul I do understand the concerns the anti change to AFK cloaking crowd is trying to tell us. That null doesn't need more hand holding mechanics. Removal of cloak camping does that in all honesty and is a valid argument. I just disagree with there stagnated local needs fixed before cloaks ideology as cloak camping really is disgusting to the point its removal should be imminent. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
50
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 14:11:17 -
[8416] - Quote
Xcom Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.
Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.
Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.
People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
329
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 14:19:00 -
[8417] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Xcom Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.
Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.
Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.
People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.
Okay, I'll bite. What does a person who has not lived in w-space know what wormholes need? If you go by statistics alone, Every space besides highsec needs a buff so that the player-amounts would be equal. CCP has said they are happy with what wormhole-space has become. Sure there are some issues, but overall they find it to be a interesting and different place to live and play the game.
Also, what the hell does wormhole-space "balance" have anything to do with a nullsec specific issue of AFK-cloaking?
Wormholer for life.
|
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
116
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 14:35:58 -
[8418] - Quote
I find it stupid that the title of this thread is even called AFK cloaking TM. Its impossible to prove if anyone is AFK or not behind there PC. It should be renamed to Cloaking. You could say that cloaks are safe enough to AFK with but its not possible assuming that as a given. It just generates pointless argumentative loops. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
51
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 15:27:30 -
[8419] - Quote
Xcom Just consider it shorthand for afk-like behavior. Defined as no player input over extended periods of time. CCP can track stuff like that. I can put it another way though:
If null-sec is safe enough to afk something, then it should be safe enough to afk everything.
I vastly prefer unsafe for afk anything myself.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5572
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 17:43:01 -
[8420] - Quote
Xcom wrote: Its more then just new code from what I understand. Either each proposal is taken into consideration with the marketing team and blocked if it reduces population count or accepted if its impact will show more towards favouring growth. Or they are just very careful adding new content and watching statistics to make sure the player base adapts before moving to new mechanics. I have seen in a few smaller MMOs where larger rewrites alienated the player base to mass quit.
Edit: @Jerghul I do understand the concerns the anti change to AFK cloaking crowd is trying to tell us. That null doesn't need more hand holding mechanics. Removal of cloak camping does that in all honesty and is a valid argument. I just disagree with there stagnated local needs fixed before cloaks ideology as cloak camping really is disgusting to the point its removal should be imminent.
Have you read the old OA thread? I recommend it. There were lots of positive comments. Granted that could be a biased sample, then there the possibility that the OA has some nice features local does not have. For example a network option where you can get intel from surrounding systems, not just the one you are in.
That is the OA might provide more intel or allow the people setting it up to mess with things like D-scan maybe even probes depending on how your fit it. That is it is better than local...but it is also vulnerable.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5572
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 17:44:27 -
[8421] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Xcom Null-sec and wormhole space actually do need more handholding. Particularly after the introduction of alpha clones. Wormhole space more than null-sec. Which is my primary argument. Wormholes really, really need the OA.
Afk cloaky camping does nothing besides supress activity. And should be removed because nullsec is not the place for afk anything. This is just a matter of principle.
Cynos are incidentally a prime example of handholding. Imagine being able to stage with absolute no risk and hit targets that have been fully vetted.
People complaining about handholding are just worried about having to actually jump gates to find targets. Too dangerous. They might lose ships.
There you have it folks...an admission of more hand holding.
Yes, lets coddle the new players so they get bored and quit.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Zockhandra
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate The Bastion
33
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 13:22:01 -
[8422] - Quote
AFK campingdoes not 'supress' activity.
The campers are not stopping you from going outside, they arent stopping you from ratting or forming a counter drop.... Only you are preventing yourself from doing anything.
You cant blame/punish them for you being too lazy/cowardly (insert other term here) to go outside and actually risk something.
Because this whole argument essentially boils down to risk vs reward. More than 700 pages of discussing come down to the question:
"Are YOU willing to go outside when there is someone around who MIGHT kill you?"
Its not a question of it being unbalanced, Its a question of people who have no idea what they are doing, other than having the mentality of "oh my space is super safe in Null!" Then crying when they get killed.
Without afk campers, there would be no major fleet movements or decent ways of acquiring Intel through means other than spies.....
Unless all the bears out there prefer having Awoxers in their ranks as opposed to cloak-revealing.
Cloaking is here to stay, If you are scared of a 4 month old character in local you shouldn't be ratting with all the other bears in null-sec. And you certainly shouldn't be complaining when you eventually (because it will happen eventually) die.
Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you.
Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned,
across from the bubble and into your hull.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2566
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 14:07:53 -
[8423] - Quote
Zockhandra wrote:AFK campingdoes not 'supress' activity.
The campers are not stopping you from going outside, they arent stopping you from ratting or forming a counter drop.... Only you are preventing yourself from doing anything.
You cant blame/punish them for you being too lazy/cowardly (insert other term here) to go outside and actually risk something.
Because this whole argument essentially boils down to risk vs reward. More than 700 pages of discussing come down to the question:
"Are YOU willing to go outside when there is someone around who MIGHT kill you?"
Its not a question of it being unbalanced, Its a question of people who have no idea what they are doing, other than having the mentality of "oh my space is super safe in Null!" Then crying when they get killed.
Without afk campers, there would be no major fleet movements or decent ways of acquiring Intel through means other than spies.....
Unless all the bears out there prefer having Awoxers in their ranks as opposed to cloak-revealing.
Cloaking is here to stay, If you are scared of a 4 month old character in local you shouldn't be ratting with all the other bears in null-sec. And you certainly shouldn't be complaining when you eventually (because it will happen eventually) die.
Yawn, another HTFU rant, how quaint...
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
845
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 14:14:28 -
[8424] - Quote
I love how the Drac/Jer (the same person) is trying desperately to control this thread by "blocking" people and refusing to acknowledge any argument that proves him wrong.
I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain how anyone AFK can hurt someone. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5585
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 20:27:02 -
[8425] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:I love how the Drac/Jer (the same person) is trying desperately to control this thread by "blocking" people and refusing to acknowledge any argument that proves him wrong.
I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain how anyone AFK can hurt someone.
On the plus side, at this rate soon he'll have just about everyone blocked and won't be posting anymore.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
848
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 23:32:01 -
[8426] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:On the plus side, at this rate soon he'll have just about everyone blocked and won't be posting anymore.
Then he will have won because "no one is arguing with him"
I love the tactic. I have a 4 year old niece who does something similar |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
53
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 01:21:27 -
[8427] - Quote
Dravclad He is sort of misunderstanding the fundamental argument: AFK cloaky campers need to HTFU and at the very least be ATK.
Waaah. We need to be safe.
Lulz.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony Mordus Angels
915
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 04:59:51 -
[8428] - Quote
The fundamental question is: is it wrong to rat safely in your own space?
The tricky part is to give PvP'ers something to shoot at which the sov owner should defend right now -- not tomorrow, not after a timer or when stront's been consumed but right the very instant a fleet comes flying through.
Since citadels have vulnerability windows, it'd be nice to be able to provoke a response within that timeframe so that a standing fleet kinda HAS to show up or you lose XXX. That way, one might get PvP with "the standing fleet" - which is desirable; because quite frankly, catching ratters is meh.
The problem is I don't know what that X would be. Open for discussion ... Perhaps a Bounty Office? Shoot it down, get a wad of cash and nobody earns a thing in that system till tomorrow? That should get your crowd to respond... in proper PvP ships. Nothing easier than blowing up an AFKtar or a Covetor but seriously ... is that even called PvP nowadays?
If there were a way to get fights from the locals -- small gang targets with immediate effect, rather than entosis today and get CTA'ed by tomorrow -- one could get PvP to his heart's content and there would be no argument at all to insist on keeping AFK cloaking. For what reason? Everybody's gotta earn a little ISK; such is the reward of owning the space one would think?
Major problem is that now, once everybody docks up, you're left with nothing to shoot. Which gets tedious. Out of sheer boredom we shotgun and maybe catch an easy gank but those don't give satisfaction. To get into a real fight, there needs to be a real objective to fight over -- and that, is something sorely lacking. Hence why the PvE'ers became the butt of the joke.
Give us a real target, and the classic HTFU argument "we can't get kills otherwise" evaporates. And with it, AFK cloaking.
Potential fixes detailed throughout the tread.
Slightly off topic, I know- but it's yet another angle from which to approach the subject. Yes? No? Our complaint box is now open ;-) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5587
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 05:33:24 -
[8429] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:The fundamental question is: is it wrong to rat safely in your own space?
The tricky part is to give PvP'ers something to shoot at which the sov owner should defend right now -- not tomorrow, not after a timer or when stront's been consumed but right the very instant a fleet comes flying through.
Since citadels have vulnerability windows, it'd be nice to be able to provoke a response within that timeframe so that a standing fleet kinda HAS to show up or you lose XXX. That way, one might get PvP with "the standing fleet" - which is desirable; because quite frankly, catching ratters is meh.
[snip]
WTFIWWY?
That has been my arguement for the OA all along.
I would have the OA be vulnerable all the time. It can only be destroyed during its vulnerability window, but all other times it can be disabled with a successful hack.
So your choices are:
1. Saddle up and go fight the a--holes off. 2. Let it get hacked and be blind and who knows what is going on different systems.
Given the nature of most NS dwellers it seems to me that they surely won't rat until the intel system is back up and running. Some players will be willing to undock and do it, but some...nope they'll just turtle up....probably until they can get their stuff back to HS and just run missions.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
54
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 11:09:44 -
[8430] - Quote
Brokk Detaching the discussion from a desire to tax ratters can be benefitial, so thank you for suggesting we try it.
What is actually needed is easily accessible real time information so that Pvpers have easy access to what vulnerability windows are currently active in a given sector of space.
There are always things people should defend in their peak activity periods. The problem is information access.
Camping systems will always generate pvp responses if the campers are vulnerable and the information is available. But again, this would depend on easily accessible real time information so defenders can find hostile pvpers on their turf. The home turf advantage in numbers holds true for smaller adhoc operations. The issue is mostly just difficulty in meeting up.
For null-sec, the fix is more local and more perfect, real time information available over greater distances.
For lesser local such as OAs, see wormhole space where it is appropriate and where the demographics really need a helping hand anyway.
Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
|
|
|
|
|
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 |