Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rico Rage
Fleetworks ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:19:00 -
[121] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? They need something to replace what nature failed to dangle between their legs.
Why the teenage angst at a constructive post? I fail to see where I started a thread, or even whined about the cloaky issues. I merely offered a solution to the issue many players identify in EVE. Can you tell us why the idea is bad?
Oh wait sorry, I forgot. This is the internet, here allow me to correct my mistake and retort in the expected manner:
"Umadatpossiblenerfbro?" |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed?
In a far too broad sense the reason would be to decloak and destroy those who are AFK. However such probes as described by that post would also able to be used against active cloakers with results that could disrupt viable tactics used by those in front of the PC.
I propose that instead of something that brings you on top of a cloaked ship for an instant decloak. Make the probe (With far longer scan time) decloak the ship only and after fair warning if given to the pilot (Assuming he is not AFK and cant read it) Forcing people that want to locate the AFK cloaker to use normal combat probes as well.
That makes only the one who is AFK in risk of being destroyed. The active cloaker will just warp off to reset the random point and come back. This will reward active cloak pilots without doing things that could suddenly decloak them in range of POS guns for instance. |
Signal11th
86
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:24:00 -
[123] - Quote
Rico Rage wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? They need something to replace what nature failed to dangle between their legs. Why the teenage angst at a constructive post? I fail to see where I started a thread, or even whined about the cloaky issues. I merely offered a solution to the issue many players identify in EVE. Can you tell us, in your perhaps limited interwebz vocabulary, why the idea is bad? Fail troll.
How many people actually complain about AFK cloaking in EVE, take that the amount of people who are "forum warriors" is a very small percentage of the actual EVE players and then it's the usual same 10-15 people who complain about it I would say it's not really a big issue.
As CCP have said it's a role that works perfectly and they have no plans to change it. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Zoe Alarhun
Drunken Space Irish
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:25:00 -
[124] - Quote
Easiest way to solve the "AFK cloaking problem" - add a Idle status to people who don't give any input to the game after 10 minutes or so. I step away from my pc for 15 minutes, I get idle state. People in local can see that. I come back it goes away. Problem solved. |
Rico Rage
Fleetworks ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:26:00 -
[125] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Rico Rage wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? They need something to replace what nature failed to dangle between their legs. Why the teenage angst at a constructive post? I fail to see where I started a thread, or even whined about the cloaky issues. I merely offered a solution to the issue many players identify in EVE. Can you tell us, in your perhaps limited interwebz vocabulary, why the idea is bad? Fail troll. How many people actually complain about AFK cloaking in EVE, take that the amount of people who are "forum warriors" is a very small percentage of the actual EVE players and then it's the usual same 10-15 people who complain about it I would say it's not really a big issue. As CCP have said it's a role that works perfectly and they have no plans to change it.
If it wasn't an issue people wouldn't use it as a strategy. The fact that AFK cloakies are prevalent I'd say, is enough to prove the fact that they are indeed an issue and very effective. |
DaSumpf
Fallen Angel's White Noise.
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:27:00 -
[126] - Quote
If you have a problem with cloakies in your carebear system you really should reconsider if 0.0 is the right place for you. If you cant live with the risks in 0.0 go to empire. Your choice.
How to deal with them cloakies :
Get organised ! Always be in a gang and on comms. Park ur 2 bil tengu or mach and get in a cheap ship (drake) if you think you need to carebear. Fit a (covert) cyno on your bait ship and have a counter ready when they try dropping you. Get urself in a cloakie ship and cloak in your enemies systems. Counter (hotdrop) them.
But pls, stop whining ! 0.0 - you choice.
Just my opinion. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:28:00 -
[127] - Quote
Zoe Alarhun wrote:Easiest way to solve the "AFK cloaking problem" - add a Idle status to people who don't give any input to the game after 10 minutes or so. I step away from my pc for 15 minutes, I get idle state. People in local can see that. I come back it goes away. Problem solved.
Well it wont be solved because even with an Idle state the AFK cloaker still can't be located and destroyed. And he can easily just cloak in a combat site or such and decloak for instant hotdrop with again no warning.
It will slightly reduce the issue but those who are determined to get free ganks with it will easily find a way around the idle timer and continue to be able to go away from the PC for long periods of time.
Perhaps a mixture of that and my idea? |
Signal11th
86
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:33:00 -
[128] - Quote
DaSumpf wrote:If you have a problem with cloakies in your carebear system you really should reconsider if 0.0 is the right place for you. If you cant live with the risks in 0.0 go to empire. Your choice.
How to deal with them cloakies :
Get organised ! Always be in a gang and on comms. Park ur 2 bil tengu or mach and get in a cheap ship (drake) if you think you need to carebear. Fit a (covert) cyno on your bait ship and have a counter ready when they try dropping you. Get urself in a cloakie ship and cloak in your enemies systems. Counter (hotdrop) them.
But pls, stop whining ! 0.0 - you choice.
Just my opinion.
^^ This
Rico, I've spent time down your area with ROL I spent time in Fountain before the Goon invasion hell count Delve,Syndicate, Etherum Reach and other places and how many AFK cloakers have I seen......2, and 1 got popped after 3 days. Christ you travel through 0.0 and are lucky if you can count 30 people through 40 systems.
AFK cloaking is not the problem it's players aversion to having to work for isk or supposedly living in the dangerous space that is known as 0.0 but don't actually want it to be "that" dangerous. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:33:00 -
[129] - Quote
Rico Rage wrote:
If it wasn't an issue people wouldn't use it as a strategy. The fact that AFK cloakies are prevalent I'd say, is enough to prove the fact that they are indeed an issue and very effective.
I agree. The same argument was made when pirates were getting extremely profitable hisec ganks with no risk. CCP fixed that issue by buffing concord. I believe with continued discussion we can find a way to also fix this issue without massive changes that either destroy nullsec or badly affect those who are actively cloaking. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
114
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:34:00 -
[130] - Quote
Rico Rage wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? They need something to replace what nature failed to dangle between their legs. Why the teenage angst at a constructive post? I fail to see where I started a thread, or even whined about the cloaky issues. I merely offered a solution to the issue many players identify in EVE. Can you tell us, in your perhaps limited interwebz vocabulary, why the idea is bad? Fail troll.
Page 6, scroll up about halfway.
I'll explain once again, with my limited vocabulary, a few reasons why nerfing cloaking is indeed a bad idea. First of all, by doing so you're affecting something near and dear to me personally, wormhole life. By nerfing cloaking you're nerfing the ability of people to actually remain discreet in systems where there simply is no local. You're creating free intel for those unlucky, unfortunate or incapable of gathering it themselves. Wormholes are the last frontiers in Eve, any nerfs that simplify that or render it more "null-like" are simply an abomination to the spirit of the holes themselves.
You see, my cowardly little friend, life in wormholes is about constantly knowing that at any moment someone is about to drop out of cloak and make your life very interesting for a few minutes. You can take the best precautions available, you can roll every hole when you log in, you can have a person maintain a skynet of combats keeping a constant scan for new holes or ships, but there's always that risk that you missed something or someone. They're there, they see you and they're calculating whether they have time to jump your drake running that combat site, or to pop that covetor you're mining with at the grav they scanned while you were offline. You know what? People in wormholes don't spend thier days wasting away within the bubble of their pos whining on the forums that things are too dangerous. Not that I've seen... anyone else?
So that's the skinny of it. Null sec is supposed to be dangerous, not a carebear flowerbed pansies and unicorns. If you want to risk running the sanctums, you need to take the appropriate precautions to do so. If there's a suspected afk cloaker, take the precautions against the "worst case scenario" as best as you can. Maybe your maximum dps PVE sanctum fit isn't really idea in this situation and you need a tweak or three "just in case". Maybe you need a friend or three along, someone on your side whose cloaked for example and ready to raise hell on any ship that attempts to decloak and interfere. Or maybe, as the "failed troll" post indicates, maybe you just need balls. Balls enough to get out there and do it anyhow, accepting the risk vs reward factor and having at it.
Regardless, you need to accept that living in null is inherent with risks. You can accept the risks and profit, or you can stay docked, whine on the forums and be forever seen as, well, a nutless coward. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
|
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:37:00 -
[131] - Quote
Quote:Funny how we got all these big suggestions for Starcraft-style cloaking mechanics like energy usage and cloakie detectors, but nobody ever suggests a simple timer to log out AFK people after a couple of hours of complete inactivity. Oh wait, I forgot that people do their PvE AFK also, sorry.
No.... because its really really easy to bypass that with a script that presses a key every 5 mins. The idea is to make something thats not stupidly easy to bypass, please try thinking before posting.
Quote:I've always liked the idea that system timers on cloaks would be a good option.
Benefits to system residents:- 1) AFK cloakies are decloaked if they do not jump out and back in after x minutes have elapsed. 2) Non AFK cloakies have to locate and drop in under x minutes or warp out and back in to be able to recloak. Defensively this means there is a chance (a small one) that you can catch them at a gate.
Benefits to cloakies:- 1) Ratters etc. that warp to a safe and cloak up ALSO lose their effectiveness and can be scanned down. 2) Ratters that try to run to station/POS because of the option above can be bubbled enroute.
Damm thats a good idea! Trying to find a flaw with it and not finding one!
Quote:And you think a scanner tool is going to save you from a cyno drop from hell?
Errrr no, I was pointing out that it isn't going to happen, because CCP don't want loads of people to quit cos they have to sit there clicking the same button over and over and over....
Quote:The proposition of a solution implies a problem. There exists no problem with AFK cloakers. AFK cloakers by definition are AFK and cannot hurt you.
When there is a way to tell the difference then your statement has some weight. Currently its just a strawman.. Of course WHILE they are AFK they are no threat, the problem is the threat they cause that they might NOT be AFK......
I begining to think certain people on the forum are either single digit IQs or pretending to be that way.
Quote:Your problem seems to be with the fact that you cannot, ever, guarantee safety in EVE. This is an intended feature.
No-one is asking for guarenetted safety, what is been asked for is that an AFKer can't disable a whole system. A decent player will pop his head up every few hours so you never know when he is there or not! If they did the same thing while at the keyboard, so they are putting the effort in, then it would be fine. The problem here is that a single player can block 1 system per account 23/7, particually if he is an alliance with a cap fleet. Keeping an escort AND cap fleet online and ready 23.5/7 just isn't going to happen!
And yes there are other occupations that make more that have lower risk. Hence why so many people are giving up on null-sec.... of course then you complain you have no targets. Risk vs reward needs to be there and this is (a major factor) making Null-sec simply not worth the risk.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
472
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:40:00 -
[132] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:In a far too broad sense the reason would be to decloak and destroy those who are AFK. GǪwhich just shifts the question down the line: why is that needed? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:41:00 -
[133] - Quote
Ingvar, My suggestion will not seriously affect active cloakers. If you are actively cloaked in a wormhole you will receive warning and are able to warp off to change the random point and prevent the decloak for say 10-15 mins to be fair?
What would affect you is CCP saying "Lets just fix this now" and swinging some massive cloak nerf bat. We dont want that |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:42:00 -
[134] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:In a far too broad sense the reason would be to decloak and destroy those who are AFK. GǪwhich just shifts the question down the line: why is that needed?
To provide risk to AFK cloaking. While preventing too much harm being those who want to remain at their computers while cloaked. |
Signal11th
87
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:42:00 -
[135] - Quote
Quote:Your problem seems to be with the fact that you cannot, ever, guarantee safety in EVE. This is an intended feature.
No-one is asking for guarenetted safety, what is been asked for is that an AFKer can't disable a whole system. A decent player will pop his head up every few hours so you never know when he is there or not! If they did the same thing while at the keyboard, so they are putting the effort in, then it would be fine. The problem here is that a single player can block 1 system per account 23/7, particually if he is an alliance with a cap fleet. Keeping an escort AND cap fleet online and ready 23.5/7 just isn't going to happen!
And yes there are other occupations that make more that have lower risk. Hence why so many people are giving up on null-sec.... of course then you complain you have no targets. Risk vs reward needs to be there and this is (a major factor) making Null-sec simply not worth the risk.
[/quote]
All that and all I saw was "We are too scared to lose a ship" If you can't defend your system correctly either with cyno jammers or defense fleets or half a dozen more ideas that you can use you really don't deserve your space.
Try living in a npc space where you have neuts in your system 24/7 guess what I'm still making money maybe not as fast as a sanctum runner but you can still make cash, Drake cheap fit rat earn isk job done.
You talk about risk vs reward?? Well I have no sanctums hardly any sites and the 2 plexes I have found in the last 3 weeks have yeilded nothing all the while dealing with neuts in the system pretty much most of the time. I managed why can't you? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:46:00 -
[136] - Quote
Tbh the only problem i see is with being able to maitain a point while lighting a cyno. Either one or the other. And being able to prevent an anomaly from despawning simply by being there cloaked but that is a game limitation that the devs sell as a "feature", or "accepted tactic" because they have no idea how to fix it.
Anything else is perfectly fair game to me. Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:48:00 -
[137] - Quote
Let's keep this topic about the issue of AFK cloaking and keep the wormhole or NPC region stuff out of it. That dives into far many off topic discussions. |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:49:00 -
[138] - Quote
AFK cloakers can prevent anomalies from despawning, therefore eliminating high-level anomalies entirely, from systems just by being there AFK. I know. I do it.
So the argument that AFK cloakers cannot do anything while AFK is a false one. Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand. |
Signal11th
87
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:50:00 -
[139] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Let's keep this topic about the issue of AFK cloaking and keep the wormhole or NPC region stuff out of it. That dives into far many off topic discussions.
not really people are saying "AFK cloakers" are holding their system to ransom because basically people can't rat and earn isk, all I said that there are more difficult areas in EVE that people have the same issue in yet still manage to cope without moaning. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
474
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:51:00 -
[140] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:To provide risk to AFK cloaking. GǪwhich, once again, shifts the question down the line: why is that needed?[/quote]
How do you propose to add risk to sitting in a POS? Or sitting in a station? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Signal11th
87
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:51:00 -
[141] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:AFK cloakers can prevent anomalies from despawning, therefore eliminating high-level anomalies entirely, from systems just by being there AFK. I know. I do it.
So the argument that AFK cloakers cannot do anything while AFK is a false one.
Very true and this should be fixed although it's only one site per cloaky, should be fixed but still doesn't stop the entire system sites appearing. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Rico Rage
Fleetworks ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:53:00 -
[142] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Rico Rage wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Tippia wrote:Rico Rage wrote:What about a new type of probes, that allows you to scan down cloaked ships? It immediately raises the question: why is that needed? They need something to replace what nature failed to dangle between their legs. Why the teenage angst at a constructive post? I fail to see where I started a thread, or even whined about the cloaky issues. I merely offered a solution to the issue many players identify in EVE. Can you tell us, in your perhaps limited interwebz vocabulary, why the idea is bad? Fail troll. Page 6, scroll up about halfway. I'll explain once again, with my limited vocabulary, a few reasons why nerfing cloaking is indeed a bad idea. First of all, by doing so you're affecting something near and dear to me personally, wormhole life. By nerfing cloaking you're nerfing the ability of people to actually remain discreet in systems where there simply is no local. You're creating free intel for those unlucky, unfortunate or incapable of gathering it themselves. Wormholes are the last frontiers in Eve, any nerfs that simplify that or render it more "null-like" are simply an abomination to the spirit of the holes themselves. You see, my cowardly little friend, life in wormholes is about constantly knowing that at any moment someone is about to drop out of cloak and make your life very interesting for a few minutes. You can take the best precautions available, you can roll every hole when you log in, you can have a person maintain a skynet of combats keeping a constant scan for new holes or ships, but there's always that risk that you missed something or someone. They're there, they see you and they're calculating whether they have time to jump your drake running that combat site, or to pop that covetor you're mining with at the grav they scanned while you were offline. You know what? People in wormholes don't spend thier days wasting away within the bubble of their pos whining on the forums that things are too dangerous. Not that I've seen... anyone else? So that's the skinny of it. Null sec is supposed to be dangerous, not a carebear flowerbed of pansies and unicorns. If you want to risk running the sanctums, you need to take the appropriate precautions to do so. If there's a suspected afk cloaker, take the precautions against the "worst case scenario" as best as you can. Maybe your maximum dps PVE sanctum fit isn't really idea in this situation and you need a tweak or three "just in case". Maybe you need a friend or three along, someone on your side whose cloaked for example and ready to raise hell on any ship that attempts to decloak and interfere. Or maybe, as the "failed troll" post indicates, maybe you just need balls. Balls enough to get out there and do it anyhow, accepting the risk vs reward factor and having at it. Regardless, you need to accept that living in null is inherent with risks. You can accept the risks and profit, or you can stay docked, whine on the forums and be forever seen as, well, a nutless coward. Edit: As far as "why the angst"? If you hadn't noticed, it's who I am.
1) I'm far from cowardly, you would find, if you actually knew anything about me.
2) I am well aware of wormhole life and its mechanics.
3) I always assume I will lose any ship I undock, even in high sec.
4) The reason I play the game is PvP. EVE PVE is beyond mind-numbingly boring
5) You should stop making unbased assumptions about forum posters, and rather than try to unsuccessfully attack the people posting the ideas, attack the idea.
6) Save the long winded wormhole mechanics explanation from your POV for a wiki, or someone who gives a damn about it. I already know game mechanics. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD Tragedy.
66
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:54:00 -
[143] - Quote
Sniped117 wrote:in the best interest of my alliance im posting on an alt.
Stopped right there. If you can't post something without feeling emberrassed and concerned for your alliance then don't post at all. |
Varesk
Maelstrom Crew
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:54:00 -
[144] - Quote
Sniped117 wrote:[quote=Gogurt]ITT: sensitive miner succumbs to space delirium, due to AFK person
that and PVE
cloaking ships need a counter its been way too long[/quote
Because one cloaking ship can do so much damage to an alliance. There are counters to everything and there is one in game for afk cloakers.
Are you in c02? |
dethleffs
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:54:00 -
[145] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Let's keep this topic about the issue of AFK cloaking and keep the wormhole or NPC region stuff out of it. That dives into far many off topic discussions.
why keep those topics out of the discussion? they are valid points by tippia and ingvar. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:55:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:To provide risk to AFK cloaking. GǪwhich, once again, shifts the question down the line: why is that needed?
How do you propose to add risk to sitting in a POS? Or sitting in a station?[/quote]
There is already risk. Bring your fleet to take down the POS or capture the station system. Not impossible.
Not playing 20 questions. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:58:00 -
[147] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Sniped117 wrote:in the best interest of my alliance im posting on an alt. Stopped right there. If you can't post something without feeling emberrassed and concerned for your alliance then don't post at all.
Considering the risk of his corp system "Gaining" an AFK cloaker as "Punishment" for speaking out about it. I think posting as an alt is a good precaution.
A good idea is a good idea despite if is an alt or main. Now can we keep on topic please? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
475
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:00:00 -
[148] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:There is already risk. Bring your fleet to take down the POS or capture the station system. Not impossible. GǪyou mean those things that you immediately see coming and therefore can escape? YeeeeahGǪ no. By that token, there is already risk in AFK cloaking by the mere fact that you're AFK and can't react to any threats that might appear.
Quote:Not playing 20 questions. It's not 20 questions GÇö it's trying to figure out what the problem with AFK cloaking is and why it needs to be solved.
So far, none of the issues have had anything to do with that, but rather with completely different things. The best GÇ£solutionGÇ¥ to AFK cloaking remains to fix local.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:01:00 -
[149] - Quote
What bugs me about AFK cloakers is that i know they are there but i cannot find them to kill them.. i want to kill them! Boils my blood when theres a troll laughing at me and i cannot smack it in the kisser. I admit that removing local as we know it will help mitigate this.
Still have a problem with anomaly denial though... it is like i said it is. CCP cannot fix that, so they say its an "accepted tactic".
Broken Science i tell you... Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 14:03:00 -
[150] - Quote
Rico Rage wrote:
1) I'm far from cowardly, you would find, if you actually knew anything about me.
2) I am well aware of wormhole life and its mechanics.
3) I always assume I will lose any ship I undock, even in high sec.
4) The reason I play the game is PvP. EVE PVE is beyond mind-numbingly boring
5) You should stop making unbased assumptions about forum posters, and rather than try to unsuccessfully attack the people posting the ideas, attack the idea.
6) Save the long winded wormhole mechanics explanation from your POV for a wiki, or someone who gives a damn about it. I already know game mechanics.
We do need to stop comparing nullsec to WH space. (Tho AFK cloaking can lead to free ganks even in WHs) That is off topic completely.
As Rico noted. We know about WH space. So WH mechanics are not relevant. What is relevant is discussing ways to remove the incentive to go AFK while cloaked in a hostile system.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |