|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 17:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Still trying to figure out the problem which everyone is trying to solve... |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
152
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 12:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
5 pages to solve something that isn't a problem. Keep going guys!!! We need to set a record. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
153
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 20:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Friggz wrote:Behr Oroo wrote: This would allow for PVP which is what CCP wants
You know why people put afk cloakys in systems. You know if those afk cloakys could be detected, people would stop doing it. You know there would be absolutely no additional pvp as a result on this, but rather less as now you can farm in 100% safety and dock up every time a hostile enters system. You know this and it exactly why you are proposing this, only you can't propose it under the idea of avoid pvp, so you jump to the more politically correct conclusion that it will increase pvp, then try to work backward to create a premise to support the conclusion. The truth is you and those who claim to support this don't really care about creating more pvp. Apparently you think the rest of us were born yesterday. I assure you, we were not. Stop wasting our time and insulting our intelligence and be honest in your arguments. If you think you should be able to farm in complete safety in 0.0 then you should be able to provide an argument to be as to why you feel that way. When you try to lie about your intentions you only show that your basic premise is flawed and you are incapable for arguing for it honestly.
Wow... pretty blunt.
+1 all the way. It's not about PVP, it is about PVE. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Voith wrote:Johan Toralen wrote:So i get decloaked and killed while i walk the dog, take a crap or have a cigarette break? No thanks.
Boo hoo, no more PvP immunity button for you. GB2WoW Where are your demands that people sitting in a pos bubble or outpost get ejected and blown up, alt boy?
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THAT TYPE OF POST
We will not allow logic or reason to be used to counter a stupid idea. Please consider yourself a bad person. ;) |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:no, afk cloaking is fine and just a result of local as OP intel tool.
afk cloaking just reflects the power of local back on its abusers, this is all right. So let's say that Local is taken from the game so that no one knows who is in system. The idea of my ship would be EVEN MORE needed cause then the cloakers would have true rule of every system. You wouldnt be able to undock from any station without fear of a cloaked group of players waiting on you. CCP would never allow this. WHY? cause people would start logging off and then simply stop playing. Wormholes, back when i lived with SYJ, we would have cloakies run through our system all the time, with no local, you know how we knew they were there? a combination of D-scan and them failing to gank our players who are fully prepared for the unexpected. All the while we continue on with our daily lives. Frankly, a cloaky ship will always lose to a combat ship, even more so if he travels with a buddy. Cloaky ships are pre-nerfed already by being a cloaky.
Yeah but living in WH requires paying more attention to what is going on and people to work together. We can't have that type of stuff in NS. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
159
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 12:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Astroniomix wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:
I ask for a chance to fight back against a style of game play at the moment that is untouchable.
But it's only untouchable up until the point that they try to interact with you. This Whilst they are untouchable, you are from them. When they can harm you, when they become a real threat, you can shoot them.
FFS, Please, Please, Please do not use logic anymore. It is completely unfair (as well as rude) to use it against someone. Because people are crying about AFK and cloaking and AFK cloaking, it HAS to be bad. ;) |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
159
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 16:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Astroniomix wrote:Behr Oroo wrote: have you actually read the mechanics of the ship I suggested? I am honestly curious how powerful you think such a scout ship would be?
I have tried to keep the ship limited to actually only decloaking a ship at a range of 2.5km and only actually being able to see the ship at 5km, with scan probes limited to a range of 8AU.
I get the impression people are not reading what I have suggested and are just blindly trying to say this wont work.
Trying to limit scan probe range doesn't really do anything. And we still haven't even touched on how this breaks wormholes. OK. I am cool. WH are special space, and poof. All detection is nullified. I never honestly ever cared about WH space anyway, so the idea of making the scout ship not work there, doesn't bother me. It fits the idea of a WH anyway.
That is why most bad ideas like yours are (and should be) ignored with prejudice. You don't care about anything but yourself and what you want. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
159
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Onomerous wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:Astroniomix wrote:Behr Oroo wrote: have you actually read the mechanics of the ship I suggested? I am honestly curious how powerful you think such a scout ship would be?
I have tried to keep the ship limited to actually only decloaking a ship at a range of 2.5km and only actually being able to see the ship at 5km, with scan probes limited to a range of 8AU.
I get the impression people are not reading what I have suggested and are just blindly trying to say this wont work.
Trying to limit scan probe range doesn't really do anything. And we still haven't even touched on how this breaks wormholes. OK. I am cool. WH are special space, and poof. All detection is nullified. I never honestly ever cared about WH space anyway, so the idea of making the scout ship not work there, doesn't bother me. It fits the idea of a WH anyway. That is why most bad ideas like yours are (and should be) ignored with prejudice. You don't care about anything but yourself and what you want. Hey, I appreciate the input. it's obviously wrong since I am offering compromises to help balance things. Nice try though.
You admitted you don't care about WH. And you are trying to fix something which isn't broken by screwing up part of EVE. If that is compromise then I'll do without. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
160
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 19:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Onomerous
You know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Just stop it. The statement was generalized around the concept of the ship. I never considered WH space when I thought about the idea and I don't care if the ship has any interaction with Wh space. If people think it breaks a mechanic in WH space, then I will consider it. Guess what. I thought about it and I agree. It effects Wh space mechanics and thus, I am more than willing to modify my suggestion by saying that the ship wouldn't work in WH for cloak detection.
So like a few others here you are attempting to derail the thread by cherry picking terminology and or statements. Stop it. I get it. You don't like the idea. That is fine. I am going to continue with the idea cause several times in this thread decent progress towards a solution has been made. If you don't wish to help, then stop reading. It is rather simple.
You know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing
Not at all. I am supporting a no-changes idea. You are supporting a change idea. We can both post our thoughts just fine. It is rather simple. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
166
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Your idea is just broken period. We've all elaborated on why enough times already. Back to the shadows with you
To paraphrase the OP, you are just "arguing to argue"!! If you don't agree with him, you have to be wrong. ;) |
|
|
|
|