| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
    |
Posted - 2011.06.10 09:35:00 -
[91]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
so you agree that remaining cloaked requires no input from the player.
No, I'm saying to do anything, requires input. If they don't do anything, then what's the problem?
You can't have it both ways, either they are a threat and doing something, or they are not.
Originally by: t'raq mardon
The issue that you keep crying about, local, as you have just said is being addressed by CCP. They have recognized that it is an issue that they want to address and are working on it. ...snip... Perhaps if you spent more time having a mature conversation about your issue and less trying to stop me from talking about mine you would have come up with something useful.
There you go again, not being truthful.
I'm not crying about anything, (and making thread after thread about it) I'm simply stating facts of which you don't want to acknowledge.
You stated they designed it that way, that was wrong. It gained intel power over time. In fact seeing reds and neutrals in local was a direct result of a client exploit. It's not something they wanted, but something they were forced into.
Maybe you can point to where CCP say AFKing is an issue, in fact in that answer thread one Dev even states: "I don't know if we have internal consensus on this (haven't asked recently)". Followed by his own opinion on the matter.
Maybe if you were more honest and stopped ignoring the real issue, then we could arrive at a solution. As I've said time and again, it should be a package of changes, not simply nerfing cloaks.
Even CCP say this about local: "Would love to as part of a larger package of changes."
You have time and again have shown you simply want to nerf cloaks, no matter what. That's not a mature or balanced approach.
Originally by: t'raq mardon
This is really hard for you to grasp isn't it? AFK cloaking is a symptom of the problem, much as a fever is a symptom of an influenza infection.
You do realise you just owned yourself with that statement? You agreed exactly with what I've been saying, cause and effect. I should have just quoted this and said /thread. 
Originally by: t'raq mardon
The problem is that cloaking has no counter and requires no input from the player, this has lead to AFK cloaking. The planned uses for cloaks could easily remain nearly unaffected while still implementing a solution to the problem which would, consequentially, nerf AFK cloaking.
Local is the reason for AFK cloaking as you've admitted and active cloaking being 'nearly unaffected' is again, not being completely honest and not a balanced approach.
Originally by: t'raq mardon
What exactly is it that you think i'm lying about, chap?
Many things, I could go through all the threads if you like and make a list?
Originally by: t'raq mardon
I would be perfectly happy to see local changed, but that would not address the issue of this thread in any way.
So using your analogy, wouldn't curing the influenza stop the fever?
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Cloaking would still be uncounterable and require no input from the player in order to stay cloaked. Again, cloaking IS uncounterable. It has some inherent weaknesses, like not being albe to engage targets while cloaked, but there is no way for other players to counter a cloaked ship, ergo uncouterable.
You've again chosen to ignore the counter.
Originally by: t'raq mardon
As much as you say you have presented counters to cloaking, you have not.
You cannot do anything to anyone whilst cloaked, that is the counter. You couldn't use those arties, never mind have someone disrupt their tracking. I'll include a module analogy too, erm oh yea, It's like using an uber ECM module on yourself, while ever it's active, you cannot use any module or target anyone.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax
Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 10:51:00 -
[92]
Originally by: zx02
Originally by: AFK Master
Originally by: zx02
AFK in some other games and you wil get bann.
AFK cloak is not part of fair play.
need to fix /change.
Name those games
lol @ fair play
Kids. You dont know what is fair play?
just paste in google "what is fair play" ok.
I take it someone is cloaked up in your bot farming system, right? 
|
Tubares Shting
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 13:29:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: zx02
Originally by: AFK Master
Originally by: zx02
AFK in some other games and you wil get bann.
AFK cloak is not part of fair play.
need to fix /change.
Name those games
lol @ fair play
Kids. You dont know what is fair play?
just paste in google "what is fair play" ok.
I take it someone is cloaked up in your bot farming system, right?
Someone is always cloaked up in White Noise space. This is why he is always here on his Jita alt complaining about "afk cloaking".
|
t'raq mardon
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 17:53:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
We've been over this. AFK cloaking is not even an issue when the simplest solution is applied, removing cloaked players from local. Not even intimidation would be happening. ..and you would be receiving no free intel anymore.
The counter to anything in EVE is vigilance and caution. Sounds to me like you are trying to make these couters less important. People with cloaks have to be careful too.. they are only undetectable while they are are able to do nothing.
Removing local would not fix the problem with cloaking. It may take away one reason to go afk while cloaked but it won't fix the problem of being untouchable while cloaked and not needing to even remain at the computer to stay cloaked.
Originally by: Mag's
No, I'm saying to do anything, requires input.
So you agree that it requires no input from the player in order to remain cloaked but you dont want to openly agree with me so you change the subject.
Originally by: Mag's
You stated they designed it that way, that was wrong. It gained intel power over time. In fact seeing reds and neutrals in local was a direct result of a client exploit. It's not something they wanted, but something they were forced into.
Maybe you can point to where CCP say AFKing is an issue, in fact in that answer thread one Dev even states: "I don't know if we have internal consensus on this (haven't asked recently)". Followed by his own opinion on the matter.
Maybe if you were more honest and stopped ignoring the real issue, then we could arrive at a solution. As I've said time and again, it should be a package of changes, not simply nerfing cloaks.
They designed local to instantly tell you when anyone jumped into system, which is what you want changed i believe, the standings just made it a little worse. Also, they have talked about it and recognize that it is something that should be addressed. As you have just pointed out, they have not talked about cloaking and even decided where they stand on the issue. All i am after is them talking about it and deciding where they stand.
It sounds like you are agreeing that cloaking needs fixed as long as that fix comes at the same time as a fix to local. I completely understand that reasoning and would be fine with delaying a fix to cloaking until a fix can be found for local.
Originally by: Mag's
You do realize you just owned yourself with that statement? You agreed exactly with what I've been saying, cause and effect. I should have just quoted this and said /thread.
Again, since you can't seem to grasp this, removing local would not fix the problem with cloaking. It may remove one reason to afk cloak, in order to lull your target into a false sense of security without having to be there for the lulling, but the problem would still remain. You would still be able to cloak you ship and walk away from the computer with no fear of losing your ship.
Originally by: Mag's
Local is the reason for AFK cloaking and active cloaking being 'nearly unaffected' is again, not being completely honest and not a balanced approach.
It is actually you who is not being completely honest. Any change could be adjusted to have only a small affect on an active cloaker
Originally by: Mag's
Many things, I could go through all the threads if you like and make a list?
Please do
Originally by: Mag's
So using your analogy, wouldn't curing the influenza stop the fever?
It would, which is why i have presented some possible cures at the beginning of this thread. what wouldn't be a "cure" is removing local, it would only address the symptom
Originally by: Mag's
You've again chosen to ignore the counter.
You have, again, not presented one.
Originally by: Mag's
You cannot do anything to anyone whilst cloaked, that is the counter.
That is in no way a counter to cloaking, it is a weakness that cloaking has. A counter is a way for other players to affect something. Can other players affect a cloaked ship?
|
Sieges
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 18:33:00 -
[95]
No.
Cloaking is fine as is.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 19:02:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Tippia on 10/06/2011 19:03:40
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Removing local would not fix the problem with cloaking. It may take away one reason to go afk while cloaked but it won't fix the problem of being untouchable while cloaked and not needing to even remain at the computer to stay cloaked.
Being "untouchable" (which isn't really a good way of describing it since cloaking up doesn't make you untouchable y you're only harder to find) while cloaked is not a problem and does not need fixing y it's the entire point of the module. And removing local solves the problem everyone complains about: AFK cloaking.
Quote:
So you agree that it requires no input from the player in order to remain cloaked
It doesn't require any input to keep shooting stuff or to keep repping either y do you want to fix that problem as well?
Quote:
It sounds like you are agreeing that cloaking needs fixed as long as that fix comes at the same time as a fix to local.
The beauty of it is that, if local is fixed, there is no need to touch cloaking. It will keep doing what it's supposed to do: keep you hidden, and the perceived downside (AFK cloaking` which imo is an upside) is removed.
Quote:
You have, again, not presented one.
False. Plenty of counters have been presented in this and other threads. Well, I suppose it might be true that Mag's, specifically, hasn't presented one, but that's just ignoring the obvious.
Quote:
Can other players affect a cloaked ship?
Yes.
yyy
tIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡`
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.v
y Karath Piki |
Sekket
Caldari
White-Noise
|
Posted - 2011.06.10 21:27:00 -
[97]
The "Cloak Ammo" or cloak fuel as I proposed a few years back seems to have gotten the greatest traction with reasonable players. Another idea is to have the cloak very very very slowly take heat damage, and need to be de-activated and repaired with nanites periodically.
Either idea makes it so that if a person or alliance wants to disrupt activities in a system by having clocked pilots in a system they cannot just log in after downtime and leave the client running while they go to work or whatever. Also it means some logistic planning involved in use of this tactic.
It does not in any way nerf an active player using cloaking as a tool for gathering intelligence on his enemy and inducing paranoia throughout a system.
|
Cantabar
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 01:35:00 -
[98]
Last I checked rats were spawning in safespots. These rats are tiny frigs that are easy to kill by a baby throwing a spoon but still they tend to decloak.
So if thats actually a feature then plz STOP whining. or get a wambulance to come get you. maybe have some cheese with that whine.
PS. Im not lieing. I have had rats warp to my safe spot before when ive sat there for 15 minutes or more.
|
Crown Royal
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 02:19:00 -
[99]
Think I heard mention of a cloak timer somewhere in the forum. What if a cloaker had a timer of x minutes that could only reset if the cloaked ship was manuvered a few meters or some other action that required a human interaction? Something that would ensure that the cloaker was not AFK but actually there? Seems pretty simple to me but I'm not the expert that many of you are. :)
|
Shin Dari
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 10:59:00 -
[100]
There is no need to counter AFK-cloakies. I have spent a lot of time in nul-sec and in my experience they aren't a threat. Most of them never do anything, so use your guts and do your stuff.
And if your really scarred you can always form a defense fleet in system, even the best pvp ships will be taken apart when people apply enough pve ships.
The one time an AFK-cloaky actually attacked me, I manage to easily fight it off while tanking fresh BS rats (to be honest I was in a Drake and he was in a Hound). Too bad I didn't have any precision missiles then, or he would not have gotten away.
|
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.06.11 16:31:00 -
[101]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Again, since you can't seem to grasp this, removing local would not fix the problem with cloaking. It may remove one reason to afk cloak, in order to lull your target into a false sense of security without having to be there for the lulling, but the problem would still remain. You would still be able to cloak you ship and walk away from the computer with no fear of losing your ship.
You seem dumber than I assumed, dude.
Which problem? Cloaking as such?
Without local the cloaker would just logoff when afk because he got no advantage of being afk cloaked anymore, which makes no difference for you at all - either he is afk and logged off or he is cloaked and active.
|
Cid SilverWing
Gallente
Dark Star Confederation
The Ancients.
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 04:56:00 -
[102]
Cloaks are there for a reason. Either L2P or GTFO EVE, because you obviously don't understand that there are people out there who don't wanna be ganked by killmail elitists.
Inbe4 more stupid - cloaks break when literally anything gets within 2000 meters. And if it's not a Covert Cloak-using ship or one that doesn't have target penalties after turning it off, they're done for when they uncloak in front of a skirmish fleet anyway. There's quite a lot of danger involved with cloaks already and smart people (especially traders) exploit this to escape gatecamps.
|
Darth Helmat
|
Posted - 2011.06.12 23:26:00 -
[103]
We don't need to remove local, just make cloaky ships disappear from local....
|
t'raq mardon
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 02:30:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 11/06/2011 16:52:47
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Again, since you can't seem to grasp this, removing local would not fix the problem with cloaking. It may remove one reason to afk cloak, in order to lull your target into a false sense of security without having to be there for the lulling, but the problem would still remain. You would still be able to cloak you ship and walk away from the computer with no fear of losing your ship.
You seem dumber than I assumed, dude.
Which problem? Cloaking as such?
Without local the cloaker would just logoff when afk because he got no advantage of being afk cloaked anymore...
Frankly, your the one who seems dumb here. I understand that by removing local, or removing cloaked ships from local, there would be no reason for several people who afk cloak to do so. But that wouldn't fix the problem presented in this thread, that being; once cloaked in a safe spot you are completely invulnerable and it requires no input from the player in order to remain cloaked. I would like to point out that I am for players having the ability to cloak in a system and incite the fear of a cyno drop/whatever else, I am against being able to walk away from the keyboard while your ship is in space and be 100% certain that your ship is safe, no matter how many days you sit cloaked in the system.
Originally by: Cantabar
Last I checked rats were spawning in safespots...
I am relatively certain that this is completely incorrect.
Originally by: Cid SilverWing
Inbe4 more stupid - cloaks break when literally anything gets within 2000 meters...
...There's quite a lot of danger involved with cloaks already and smart people (especially traders) exploit this to escape gatecamps.
Yes because there is a lot of stuff floating in space to decloak you, oh wait, no there isn't
There is NO danger involved in sitting in a safe spot with a cloak on. Absolutely none what so ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 02:51:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Tippia on 13/06/2011 02:51:17
Originally by: t'raq mardon
But that wouldn't fix the problem presented in this thread, that being; once cloaked in a safe spot you are completely invulnerable and it requires no input from the player in order to remain cloaked.
Why is that a problem? That's just the cloak doing what it's supposed to do y making you undetectable. And hell, it doesn't even do that fully because local lets you detect the guy anyway. That's a bit like saying it's a problem that, when you get hit by a missile, it does damage`
Quote:
I am against being able to walk away from the keyboard while your ship is in space and be 100% certain that your ship is safe, no matter how many days you sit cloaked in the system.
Why? What difference does it make? And as others have pointed out, this is really no different than being in a station or y hell y simply logging off.
Quote:
There is NO danger involved in sitting in a safe spot with a cloak on. Absolutely none what so ever.
There are plenty of situations that exhibit the same characteristics. Do you want to change them as well?
yyy
tIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡`
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.v
y Karath Piki |
celebro
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 03:09:00 -
[106]
Don't know if this has been mention but one solution from another mmo is if there is no interaction from player in 30 mins client logs off automaticaly.
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 03:29:00 -
[107]
I want to be able to eject afk players from stations. Especially ones with big bounties.
A cloak is simply a portable station that you cannot resupply at.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 05:58:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 13/06/2011 06:01:50
Quote:
I am against being able to walk away from the keyboard while your ship is in space and be 100% certain that your ship is safe, no matter how many days you sit cloaked in the system.
here's the flaw in your thinking.
You aren't 100% safe in space cloaked. As I have said I have seen covert ops go down being caught cloaked.. while this may be improbable it's not impossible.
Finally, you don't ever get to be afk for days at a time and you know it. So you are being deliberately false here; DT prevents anyone staying logged in for 24 hours straight even while you are not afk.
It's very unlikely that a person would remain afk cloaked even for 23 hours. Your attack is against the idea of cloaks all together; you are using the afk arguement to try to whine your way to a nerf.
Don't change the cloaks, remove the cloaked from local; problem solved.
 |
t'raq mardon
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 15:35:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Tippia
]There are plenty of situations that exhibit the same characteristics. Do you want to change them as well?
Actually there are only 2 situations that are similar. One is docking in a station which cost massive amounts of isk, comparatively, and in my opinion does need to be altered in some way. The other is logging off, and i think it's a bit hard to ask a player to interact with the client when they have closed the client.
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
You aren't 100% safe in space cloaked. As I have said I have seen covert ops go down being caught cloaked.. while this may be improbable it's not impossible.
If the cloaked ship is in a safe spot or more that 50km off a group of players they are virtually 100% safe. I suppose there is a risk on the scale of 1:100,000 that the ship can be found if its a few dozen km off another player when it cloaks, risk quickly increases as range decreases, but outside of that the risk is not actually zero but for all practice purposes it is.
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Finally, you don't ever get to be afk for days at a time and you know it. So you are being deliberately false here; DT prevents anyone staying logged in for 24 hours straight even while you are not afk.
You would be hard pressed to call logging in and activating a cloak being an active player. In fact there has been a lot of complaint about solutions to cloaking creating easily macroable processes making them not viable because it would mean CCP would be encouraging macroing. You rally can't find a more easily macroable process than logging on and pressing F1, so i argue that by not changing cloaking you are encouraging macroing.
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
It's very unlikely that a person would remain afk cloaked even for 23 hours. Your attack is against the idea of cloaks all together; you are using the afk argument to try to whine your way to a nerf.
I dont believe i ever said that every person cloaked is afk or that every afk cloaker remains that way. I have said several times that i believe afk cloaking is the symptom of the problem. Cloaking is the only mechanic that allows a player to be completely safe while in space and requires no input from the player. I absolutely dont want active cloaking nerfed but the fact that people can go afk while cloaked points to an underlying problem with cloaking devices that should be addressed. I feel that it can be addressed in a way that would not only fix the problem but limit the affect on active cloakers and make the game play more dynamic as well.
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Don't change the cloaks, remove the cloaked from local; problem solved.
As i have said several time, removing local would not in any way solve the problem. It would simply hide it. That's like telling your kid to clean their room and being satisfied when they jam everything into the closet. You cant see the problem, but its still there.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 17:09:00 -
[110]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Actually there are only 2 situations that are similar.
There are more than that, actually, if we look at your core complaint: that people are not interacting with the client and still being given the effect you're asking for. AFK-killing a POS, for instance. No interaction required.
Quote:
One is docking in a station which cost massive amounts of isk, comparatively, and in my opinion does need to be altered in some way.
Why not? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Cost is never an excuse for circumventing game mechanics. So why isn't it bad to be safe in a station when it's apparently bad to be "safe" when cloaked (never mind that the supposed safety of the cloak isn't nearly as safe as that of a station)? And if you absolutely want to make cost a factor y how many people is that cost spread out over? What does that cost buy you in terms of services and facilities?
Quote:
The other is logging off, and i think it's a bit hard to ask a player to interact with the client when they have closed the client.
You mean like it's hard to ask a player to interact with the client when they're not close to the client?
And again, what difference does it make whether the person is there or not?
Quote:
Cloaking is the only mechanic that allows a player to be completely safe while in space and requires no input from the player.
Why is that a problem? Isn't that simply the cloak doing exactly what it's meant to do.
Quote:
As i have said several time, removing local would not in any way solve the problem. It would simply hide it.
And again, what is the problem? Why does removing local not solve it?
yyy
tIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡`
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.v
y Karath Piki |
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.06.13 17:56:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 13/06/2011 18:06:28
Quote:
As i have said several time, removing local would not in any way solve the problem. It would simply hide it. That's like telling your kid to clean their room and being satisfied when they jam everything into the closet. You cant see the problem, but its still there.
This is 100% not true. The problem and the only thing about people cloaked and apparently not at the keyboard (which you have no way to know) is that they are an ever present threat. With them out of local they are not threatening you through intimidation.. so there is no motive for them to stay in system cloaked.
Then too, you don't see the cloaked, the way it should have been from the beginning, so you have no itchy trigger finger and no sour grape feeling because you rightly don't know they are there.
The nerf suggestions for cloaking have been dracoian and unfair to other aspects of cloaking activity, in some cases actually breaking cloaking completely for use.
Cloaking is not a problem..certainly not something that deserve such a heavy handed action. Compared to other activities that use macros to actually hurt the game; this is a non-issue.
You are wrong. Removal from local is the only acceptable change.
Quote:
dont believe i ever said that every person cloaked is afk or that every afk cloaker remains that way. I have said several times that i believe afk cloaking is the symptom of the problem.
Certainly cloaking is being villianized by you using the lame afk arguement. Cloaking is working the way it's supposed to with the acception that you know the cloaked are there 23/7 which is wrong.
Quote:
If the cloaked ship is in a safe spot or more that 50km off a group of players they are virtually 100% safe. I suppose there is a risk on the scale of 1:100,000 that the ship can be found if its a few dozen km off another player when it cloaks, risk quickly increases as range decreases, but outside of that the risk is not actually zero but for all practice purposes it is.
You are asking me to accept conclusions I know to be incorrect. I know because I have lost cloaked vessels that were 50K from war-targets cloaked. Uncovered, immobilized, and taken down. Again you are wrong.
|
t'raq mardon
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 07:01:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Actually there are only 2 situations that are similar.
There are more than that, actually, if we look at your core complaint: that people are not interacting with the client and still being given the effect you're asking for. AFK-killing a POS, for instance. No interaction required.
So are you trying to argue that going afk while you ship is shooting a pos has no risk? Because if you, you are crazy. There are exactly 3 situations in eve that make you completely invulnerable, that is; logging off, docking, and cloaking. and i would argue that cloaking is safer even than docking since when you are docked your enemy knows exactly where you are and when you undock. While you are cloaked your enemy has no clue where you are, and no heads up that you are uncloaking.
The rest of your argument seems to be "whys it a problem" so i will explain this yet again, though this is starting to sound like an argument with a 3 year old who just keeps replying "why". The problem is that cloaking was absolutely NOT designed to facilitate afk game play and currently it is doing just that. Once activated, a cloaking device makes you completely invulnerable and requires absolutely no input from the player. This is being taken advantage of by players engaging their cloaking device and then walking away form the computer. Regardless of the reason this is being done, it is a flaw in the game and needs to be fixed.
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
You are asking me to accept conclusions I know to be incorrect. I know because I have lost cloaked vessels that were 50K from war-targets cloaked. Uncovered, immobilized, and taken down. Again you are wrong.
If you were 50k off of a group of interceptors with a T1 cloak on an industrial ship with no AB/MWD it should still be easy for you to escape. So unless you lost that ship on purpose you may very well be a complete moron.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 07:37:00 -
[113]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
So are you trying to argue that going afk while you ship is shooting a pos has no risk?
No, I'm saying that it requires no input to achieve your purpose. I'm taking your complaint and applying it to the full set of cases where it's applicable.
Quote:
The problem is that cloaking was absolutely NOT designed to facilitate afk game play and currently it is doing just that.
What AFK game play does it facilitate? You can't do anything while cloaked and AFK. Nothing. So what does that achieve?
Quote:
This is being taken advantage of by players engaging their cloaking device and then walking away form the computer.
In what way? Again: why is it a problem?
yyy
tIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡`
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.v
y Karath Piki |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 07:46:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Tippia
Quote:
This is being taken advantage of by players engaging their cloaking device and then walking away form the computer.
In what way? Again: why is it a problem?
because he cant run his hidden dens and cant bait the cloaker :-D
Just consider going afk cloak as counter to baiting.
|
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 10:05:00 -
[115]
Since the only problem afk cloaking causes is players of low intelligence getting in a huff about it, I'd like to point out that obviously the counter is to come on here and constantly aggressively complain.
----
I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Mens Desire
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 10:54:00 -
[116]
**** EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD WHO THINKS CLOAKING IS BROKEN.
BLASTERS NEED A BUFF, GALLENTE NEED A BUFF, I WOULD LIKE FW TO BE BETTER, 0.0 AND SC'S NEED FIXED, JB NEED COMPLETELY REMOVED.
THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING ****ING WRONG WITH THEM, BECAUSE YOUR TOO ****ING STUPID TO REALISE THE GUY IN LOCAL, CLOAKED IS NOT A THREAT UNTIL HE DECLOAKS AND IF YOUR TO STUPID TO MOVE SYSTEM, PREPARE A TRAP OR ACCEPT A "CLOAK" IS FOR LONG SURVEILLANCE/RECON TACTICS THEN GET ****ED, MOVE YOUR BOT YOU PATHETIC ****ING ******S, JESUS ****ING CHRIST.
EVE IS SO FULL OF ****ING DERPTARDS
|
t'raq mardon
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:51:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Tippia
No, I'm saying that it requires no input to achieve your purpose. I'm taking your complaint and applying it to the full set of cases where it's applicable.
My complaint is not just that it requires no input from the player but that you are also invulnerable. I understand that you really have no argument and need to attack only individual pieces to make your semi-legitimate arguments.
Originally by: Tippia
What AFK game play does it facilitate? You can't do anything while cloaked and AFK. Nothing. So what does that achieve?
So your argument now is that afk cloaking doesn't do anything? so what is the purpose of afk cloaking then?
Originally by: Tippia
In what way? Again: why is it a problem?
I literally explained "in what way" in that sentence, by activating their cloaks and walking away. Its a problem because its a fundamentally broken mechanic that's being taken advantage of.
|
Woodman2
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:12:00 -
[118]
Can you prove they are AFK? (although it makes no difference to me if they are or aren't)
Can you prove that you aren't using bots? I think you are.
How about dealing with them like the rest of us have to deal with a threat in the game instead of constantly whining like a little kid on the forums about it.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:14:00 -
[119]
Originally by: t'raq mardon
Originally by: Tippia
No, I'm saying that it requires no input to achieve your purpose. I'm taking your complaint and applying it to the full set of cases where it's applicable.
My complaint is not just that it requires no input from the player but that you are also invulnerable. I understand that you really have no argument and need to attack only individual pieces to make your semi-legitimate arguments.
Originally by: Tippia
What AFK game play does it facilitate? You can't do anything while cloaked and AFK. Nothing. So what does that achieve?
So your argument now is that afk cloaking doesn't do anything? so what is the purpose of afk cloaking then?
Originally by: Tippia
In what way? Again: why is it a problem?
I literally explained "in what way" in that sentence, by activating their cloaks and walking away. Its a problem because its a fundamentally broken mechanic that's being taken advantage of.
Why not ban poses and docking too, as you're effectively invulnerable in either of those? (A stronted pos. You cannot destroy one of those in 24 hours.) And while you're at it, ban logging off too. And all forms of tanking. Every ship should explode the second it is locked, and be on overview from everywhere in the solar system.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.06.14 15:16:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/06/2011 15:17:25
going afk is a counter and required very often if you want to roam/camp space with a lot of hostiles.
As soon as you appear in intel channels, the hostiles tend to hunt you/camp you with 20x that many people as you are (which is highly unfair). If there was no possibility of going afk, they would just camp you forever without any counter because they know you cant evade and cant sit forever in front of your PC.
With CLOAK, you can just go to a safe and leave your computer running, letting them camp you for hours (did it already many times), it is really effective tactic to get rid of them and stay alive.
Another situation is if you are camping a system with a bomber or something, they will try to bait you over and over again; here too, is the counter "afk cloaking". You just cloak up on a safe spot and go away from computer while the hostiles are trying to bait you with all they have (which is highly unfair). Then, after some while, when they gave up baiting you, you go, gank one, and continue your roam/camp.
A very effective tactic, which we are unfortunately forced to thanks to immediate, faultless local intel, which always tell the hostiles where you are.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |