Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
638
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 15:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote: I am willing to put my ships at risk and fight. I can make others. The risk doesnt bother me. The fact that my hands are tied and I cant engage this pilot is my issue. Even if it isn't a ship, something needs to be done to combat camping.
right now cloakers are safe yes, if you nerf them the way you want, jewing empires in deep 0.0 would be safe. I prefer the first. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 15:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
I actually disagree. I think the idea of the scout ship offers the balance you want. Right now PVPers cry foul cause PVEers dock up or run. This ship doesn't allow that. Why? Cause its in space. It's design to go start a fight.
Now if youre goal is to blow up mining barges, then I don't know what to tell you but if you are interested in some PVP, isn't the best way to do that is to keep ships in space?
So bob logs in. Hell yes I am going to dock my mining or ratting ship and I am going to get my scout ship. I am also going to be in space and ready for a fight. You still hold the advantage. Youre cloak offers a fair amount of safety and the scout ship can only do so much. If your active, it would take a very skilled pilot to track you do.
But dont tell me that I have to offer up my PVE ships against your PVP fitted ones. You want to fight. Let's fight, but I want to be able to defend myself. I think that's a rather fair thing to ask. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 15:59:00 -
[93] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Behr Oroo wrote: I am willing to put my ships at risk and fight. I can make others. The risk doesnt bother me. The fact that my hands are tied and I cant engage this pilot is my issue. Even if it isn't a ship, something needs to be done to combat camping.
right now cloakers are safe yes, if you nerf them the way you want, jewing empires in deep 0.0 would be safe. I prefer the first.
So you prefer your safety but when I ask for an equal footing, suddenly become a 5 month old noob.......
I havent suggested a nerf to cloak. Cloak would stay the same. I am actually moving more in favor of the idea of removing black ops ships from local and implementing the scout ship. This levels the playing field even more. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
638
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 16:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:I actually disagree. I think the idea of the scout ship offers the balance you want. Right now PVPers cry foul cause PVEers dock up or run. This ship doesn't allow that. Why? Cause its in space. It's design to go start a fight. its not about a fight its about jewing empires being safe. You shouldnt be able to rat and generate masses of ISK in total safety, which would be possible then.
Behr Oroo wrote: So you prefer your safety but when I ask for an equal footing, suddenly become a 5 month old noob.......
yes I always would pick safe cloaker before safe ratter, the first isnt generating wealth of any form.
afk cloaking doesnt even stop income btw, all it stops are dumb farmers who never leave a system and are too stupid for anything else than farming hubs. There are plenty of ways to evade cloakers... |
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
133
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 16:30:00 -
[95] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:I havent suggested a nerf to cloak. Cloak would stay the same.
In what world are you living in? Of course it's a nerf to cloaking. The implications of your idea go well beyond dealing with afk cloakers. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
507
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 16:56:00 -
[96] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote: What I want is a way to combat this pilot. You want a way to combat against a pilot who has no way to combat against you? Did you forget that a cloaked ship cannot fight or inflict any kind of damage?
Quote:Many of the arguments placed against my idea are actually my exact argument but from the PVP standpoint. You claim I want safety but my suggestion threatens you're safety and thus you are against it. You already have an abundance of safety in your own space. You have stations to dock at, you have POS bubbles to go to, you have an early-warning network powered by the Perfect Intel of Local. You have every single advantage and the intruder only has their cloak. You're not asking to protect your safety, you're asking to prevent anyone from being able to interact with you in a way you don't like.
Quote:I am willing to put my ships at risk and fight. I can make others. The risk doesnt bother me. The fact that my hands are tied and I cant engage this pilot is my issue. Even if it isn't a ship, something needs to be done to combat camping. Why do you have an issue with being unable to engage a pilot who's likewise unable to engage you? Why do you demand the right to force someone to become vulnerable when you won't give them the same right to force you into equal vulnerability when you dock or POS up? Answer this first and then we can talk about just how much something does or does not "need" to be done about camping.
Quote:If you are going to sit in my system, why should I let you just sit there and collect intel on me, If you go and sit cloaked in his system, he has just as little choice about the matter as you. Thus, it's fair. Moreover, ships are decloaked and vulnerable for a moment when they first break gate cloak. If your alliance isn't terrible, they should be able to set up an instalock camp. Maybe they can ask the lowsec pirates how it's done. Or get a dictor and put up some bubblecamps.
Quote:Why should you be allowed to sit in my system in complete safety and tell me that I am not allowed to do something about it? It's really not your system. You don't own it and you don't have access control over the gates. Anyone is free to come and go as they please. If I want to stop at a safespot, who are you to tell me that I can't? What right do you have to control what I do or don't do? Besides which, as long as I have my complete safety you still have yours too.
After all, in order to kill you and your shiny pod, hotdrop you, or interact with you in any way... I first have to... decloak. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1417
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:04:00 -
[97] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:we're argueing with a 5 months old noob here... just saying Where do you get the idea that I have only been playing for 5 months? You know I can understand the arguments being placed against me. I havent asked to fight in complete safety or anything of that nature. What I am asking for is a way to deal with a potential threat. As it stands now if a cloaky comes into system you have a few choices. You can dock up, you can go to a safe pos, or you can continue what you are doing. So what I am being told by many of you is that I am crying that I want things to be safe and I am not willing to risk anything. This however isn't true. What I want is a way to combat this pilot. Many of the arguments placed against my idea are actually my exact argument but from the PVP standpoint. You claim I want safety but my suggestion threatens you're safety and thus you are against it. I am willing to put my ships at risk and fight. I can make others. The risk doesnt bother me. The fact that my hands are tied and I cant engage this pilot is my issue. Even if it isn't a ship, something needs to be done to combat camping. If you are going to sit in my system, why should I let you just sit there and collect intel on me, or why should I take the risk of losing a ship to you. Why should you be allowed to sit in my system in complete safety and tell me that I am not allowed to do something about it? There are plenty of threads about the AFK cloak issue. There are plenty of people that have admitted that it is an issue. You can call me a noob or whatever you want. That doesn't make a difference to me. I have placed a suggestion out there to even the playing field. It places risk on both sides of the field for PVE and PVP. Is it perfect? No. Does it have flaws. Yes. I didnt say that it should be put into the next patch but instead of saying No No No. I am sure that other suggestions could be put out there that combined would satisfy all sides.
Why should you have a way to combat a pilot who has no way to combat you? Why should you be able to combat him because he's AFK, but when you're AFK in your pos bubble or outpost he has no ability to combat you? Why should a cloaker have extra risks piled on when residents have virtually zero risk? Why are all the ideas proposed ones that FURTHER decrease risk to residents while INCREASING risk/punishments to visiting cloakers? Why havent you addressed the points I made about how your idea is a massive nerf to a number of different - and very much 'at the keyboard' - activities?
I'll answer all these question and more: Because these ideas are never, EVER about balance, or about creating incentives to PVP. They are quite simply about removing uncertainty in nullsec, because a tiny minority of bad, terrible players cannot understand or cope with said uncertainties. They see the name in local, but don't know if the player is active, or how big a threat he is. And they hate that. They hate it so much they come up with endless scapegoats and strawmen arguments.
It's funny how simple questions can expose the true nature of these threads.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
1934
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:27:00 -
[98] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Now if youre goal is to blow up mining barges, then I don't know what to tell you but if you are interested in some PVP, isn't the best way to do that is to keep ships in space? Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?
PvE is not supposed to be risk free in ANY part of EVE, and certainly not in null the way it is now.
If these players wanted to have regular consensual fights, they could show up in a roaming fleet, and wait patiently for you to bring your forces together and face them. It is a struggle to imagine that happening in EVE with a straight face.
PvP is about warfare, and exploiting the weaknesses of your opponent.
Bulletproof PvE makes no sense in the context of a PvP game, and being able to avoid the bullets is the same result.
Behr Oroo wrote:So bob logs in. Hell yes I am going to dock my mining or ratting ship and I am going to get my scout ship. I am also going to be in space and ready for a fight. You still hold the advantage. Youre cloak offers a fair amount of safety and the scout ship can only do so much. If your active, it would take a very skilled pilot to track you do.
But dont tell me that I have to offer up my PVE ships against your PVP fitted ones. You want to fight. Let's fight, but I want to be able to defend myself. I think that's a rather fair thing to ask. Offer up?
The very idea that you can undock a PvE ship, and still keep full control over whether it can be attacked this way, in null sec no less... it defeats competition on that level entirely. PvP is not supposed to be consensual, when the ship needs to be out in space to generate income. Yet here it is, completely up to the PvE pilot whether the PvP pilot is able to reach them.
Or, to be blunt, the PvE pilot must give consent to be attacked. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:32:00 -
[99] - Quote
OK so let me respond to all this.
First Robert. Your points are becoming less and less valid. The increase in attempted insults and other things really make you seem less interested in actually discussing the topic and more about trolling it. You seem to be concerned about people making ISK in safety. I spent most of the morning making ISK in perfect safety with a cloaky camper in my system at the moment. Nothing happened. No big deal.
Johan, cloaks wouldnt change, you would still hold all the advantages you have now but instead of being untouchable, you now have a potential threat against you. If you wish to call this a nerf to the cloak, so be it. It's a nerf. Personally I see no downside to this. If you are in space, you run the risk of being attacked. If your in a cloaked ship, you can stay in space forever and never get attacked, can collect intel or just sit afk to annoy people and keep them from doing stuff out of fear.
Alvatore, let me answer some of your questions. I know a cloaked ship can't attack me unless it decloaks. That's pretty simple. I am not sure why you choose to quote this and try to point it out since it really adds nothing to your argument for or against my idea. As for your second quote. I have also suggested the idea of taking Black Ops ships out of local, giving them the freedom of their cloak but in exchange for the scout ship. This is a fair trade in my opinion. The scout ship wouldn't be able to be a primary ship, unless someone plans to sit in it at all times and run scans. The most likely early warning system will be the screams from the first person that gets killed by a black ops fleet.
"Why do you have an issue with being unable to engage a pilot who's likewise unable to engage you? Why do you demand the right to force someone to become vulnerable when you won't give them the same right to force you into equal vulnerability when you dock or POS up? Answer this first and then we can talk about just how much something does or does not "need" to be done about camping."
Let me answer this. Your statement that the pilot can not engage me is false. By being in system, they have engaged everyone there. They have provided a threat to that system. I wish to have a way to deal with that threat. The current system does not allow me to do anything other than dock up OR I can risk a ship in space but only on the terms of the cloaky. They determine if they wish to fight, they determine when and where. To use your logic. I cant decloak you if I am docked up. The scout ship gives you exactly what you want. A target in space ready to fight. From how you structure your argument, it would seem to be that you arent interested in a fight but more about the chance to blow up an unarmed mining barge, or a PVE fit ratting ship. Two ship types that pose very little threat to you. So question answered.
As for gate camps to catch cloaked ships or something else of that nature. Of course those can be setup but the cloak still holds its advantage and always will. Of course a well equiped camp can catch a cloaky. That wouldnt chance, with or without the scout ship. And as it for not being my system. Are you really going to go down that path? You know exactly what I mean. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
1934
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:43:00 -
[100] - Quote
Then do the PvE exclusively in this new scout ship.
Being able to use an asset and profit from it thus, this gives license to justify how much profit can be made. If you have PvE assets that cannot be attacked without consent from the pilot, the risk is trivial and so should be the reward.
If you want quantity over quality, go to high sec where Concord has your back.
Being able to need no defense because you can always avoid trouble, just no.
Risk needs to be more than the possibility of pilot error, or the reward needs to drop so it matches. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:45:00 -
[101] - Quote
"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"
The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.
This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
639
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:52:00 -
[102] - Quote
just go diaf finally.
or read other threads same topic was beaten to death already.
afk cloaking is fine. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
1934
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:52:00 -
[103] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"
The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.
This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever. A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm.
The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed.
That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:56:00 -
[104] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:just go diaf finally.
or read other threads same topic was beaten to death already.
afk cloaking is fine.
I don't go away that easily. If you wish to stop responding to the thread, you are more than welcome. I disagree that it's fine and I am voicing my opinion. Sorry if you are unhappy with it. People are pointing out possible flaws with my ideas. I am offering counter points and I will continue to.
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 18:02:00 -
[105] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"
The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.
This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever. A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm. The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed. That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly.
OK. Then let's scale the idea back. Your average scan probe can scan out to 32km. What if the scout ship was limited to a 8KM probe range. On average that would mean that most systems could only have 25% of the system scanned at a time.
So instead of click and scan, you have to put a bit more effort into it and I still like the idea of taking black ops out of local, cloaked or unlocked. Like WH space, they would only show up if they spoke. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
1934
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 18:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:"Why are the mining barges offered absolute safety, on this level?"
The idea that I have started to lean to is taking black ops ship from local, in exchange for the scout class. This would still give you the chance to blow a mining barge if you want. Local couldn't warn them unless you engaged a target, then the intel would be passed along in alliance.
This makes sense if you think about it. You get an upgrade to your cloak, gives you the chance to get deeper into areas, get your intel and whatever. A few brief minutes of pro-active scans using your scout ship would quickly become the norm. The black ops would need to arrive after the scans were done, but before the target left or more scans were performed. That gives control to the PvE interests quite neatly. OK. Then let's scale the idea back. Your average scan probe can scan out to 32km. What if the scout ship was limited to a 8KM probe range. On average that would mean that most systems could only have 25% of the system scanned at a time. So instead of click and scan, you have to put a bit more effort into it and I still like the idea of taking black ops out of local, cloaked or uncloaked. Like WH space, they would only show up if they spoke. I genuinely appreciate the thought you put into this. It is frustrating to hear repetitive ideas that assume balance is already missing, and cloaking needs to be nerfed to fix it.
You are, at least, willing to concede that balance must be maintained.
I would suggest you read these two threads. You may not agree with them completely, but they do provide an objective and balanced solution if used together. (In my opinion, and from my perspective as a miner specifically)
My goal in making them was then, as it is now, to raise the bar on effort for mining, and following that the rewards as well. (They are most meaningful in null sec, where I normally play)
How to adjust local: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739
How to hunt cloaked vessels: (Yes, the title reinforces my point about local being reduced in exchange) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453
Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 18:22:00 -
[107] - Quote
I will read these threads. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
504
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 18:54:00 -
[108] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:I will read these threads. Read the AFK Cloaking Collection Thread While you're at it. By now every variation of every idea you can come up with on the subject has been done. |
Friggz
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 20:42:00 -
[109] - Quote
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.
The Evolution of the Stealth Bomber, and the story of the first Black Ops Capital Kill in EvE.
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/969 |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
854
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 20:51:00 -
[110] - Quote
Its far too powerful, especially in active fleet scenarios. Good luck getting that recon in position for that hot drop .... Or getting your bomber on a gate sniper. Or any of the other uses cloaked ships actually have rather than putting fear in the hearts of carebears. |
|
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
153
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 20:56:00 -
[111] - 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. |
PeanutButter JellyTime22
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 21:16:00 -
[112] - 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.
100% Agreed. I've spent the last few weeks roaming null in a cloaky proteus and, unless the locals are completely ********, it's near impossible to catch anything, everyone just docks or runs to a POS. I'm becoming a firm believer in a local nerf, balanced by some sort of cloak nerf because basically, if someone doesn't want to get caught, they have to expend VERY little effort to become absolutely safe, while the hunter expends far more effort and gets sweet FA. Any change to cloaks should be seriously considered and balanced against the ability of the "hunted" (aka carebears) to get safe, either by dramatically increasing the number of npc's that warp scramble or by reducing the effectiveness of the game's greatest and cheapest intel tool. In my opinion, 0.0 is 95% safe for carebears, where the only way to catch something involves either retardation or incredible luck, this needs to change so that *effort* is required for players to be safe rather than just staying aligned and warping to the nearest safe structure. I'm not saying that carebears need to put in as much effort as hunters do in the game of cat-and-mouse, but they should be forced to do *something*. On a side note, no local = massive nerf to our beloved community of bots |
Airto TLA
Puppeteers of Doom
47
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 21:27:00 -
[113] - Quote
PeanutButter JellyTime22 wrote: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. 100% Agreed. I've spent the last few weeks roaming null in a cloaky proteus and, unless the locals are completely ********, it's near impossible to catch anything, everyone just docks or runs to a POS. I'm becoming a firm believer in a local nerf, balanced by some sort of cloak nerf because basically, if someone doesn't want to get caught, they have to expend VERY little effort to become absolutely safe, while the hunter expends far more effort and gets sweet FA. Any change to cloaks should be seriously considered and balanced against the ability of the "hunted" (aka carebears) to get safe, either by dramatically increasing the number of npc's that warp scramble or by reducing the effectiveness of the game's greatest and cheapest intel tool. In my opinion, 0.0 is 95% safe for carebears, where the only way to catch something involves either retardation or incredible luck, this needs to change so that *effort* is required for players to be safe rather than just staying aligned and warping to the nearest safe structure. I'm not saying that carebears need to put in as much effort as hunters do in the game of cat-and-mouse, but they should be forced to do *something*. On a side note, no local = massive nerf to our beloved community of bots
Actually if they also nerfed cynos you would also get more pvp since a hand ful of bears might come out to see if they can take you, but after getting dropped on a few times all the bear leaders state those who engage and mess up our kill board will be dropped.
So ban killboards, AFK cloaking and cynos and PVP will srpout from the rocks (Nooo, not realllly)!) |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1418
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 21:34:00 -
[114] - Quote
Remember that one time in this thread I asked a handful of basic questions and OP ignored them because he knows he's being dishonest when he states the motivation and desired outcomes for these little changes of his |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
1936
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 21:38:00 -
[115] - Quote
Airto TLA, you sort of make a point about kill boards, but you are off a bit from the target.
Skipping analogies about feeding animals, it is simply a matter of positive feedback making people pick where they hunt.
Or, put another way, if a hunter gets more kills in certain systems, he is more likely to hunt there again.
Unless you have solid PvP support, you can't function in systems with high levels of hostile activity. And PvP pilots want easy predictable action, so they want to go to the systems where they got the easiest kills, not twiddling thumbs acting like a deterrent.
Phooey.... who actually thought PvP players would be happy to stand guard... did not consider human nature. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 22:21:00 -
[116] - 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.
I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
640
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 22:34:00 -
[117] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:[quote=Friggz]I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons.
only a dumb i*diot would believe your idea would bring more pvp. |
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 22:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Remember that one time in this thread I asked a handful of basic questions and OP ignored them because he knows he's being dishonest when he states the motivation and desired outcomes for these little changes of his
To answer your question to you directly. Why do you I want this? I want to be able to confront a threat in my system. I dont like the idea of running away. I would like to be able to fight. However with the current system, it doesn't allow it.
You all are all crying that it is impossible to kill a PVE ship cause as soon as someone enters local that is unfriendly or unknown, players dock up or safe up. I would do the same in a PVE ship. Why would I bring a knife to a gun fight. Why would I let a PVP player dictate the terms of a battle to me. That person has invaded the system I call home. My intention is to fight off that aggression and there is no way that I would ever do that in a poorly equiped ship. PVPers bring ships into battle designed to kill, yet when I offer up a solution that puts them against OTHER PVP style ships, they cry foul and try to spin this by saying I want to farm in complete safety.
Well simply put you are wrong. Everyone reading this thread knows exactly about the style of game play I am refering to. I am talking about the AFK camper that sits in a system for several days on end, or even if he is active, he sits in the system for days. I am not talking about the random roam or anything like that.
If I sat in your deployment system for a week and watched every action you made, would you not want some way to run me out of the system? That answer is yes. You can not deny this. Intel is the key to any way and null sec is currently fighting a war.
Dont make assumptions about my intentions when your arguments are just as twisted. None of the PVPers are talking about wanting PVP. They want to blow up a mining ship or a ratting ship.
I have offered limits to the ship, offered balances to local, and offered for people to add input to the issue. Very few people have taken the time to even suggest a compremise.
|
Behr Oroo
The Circus Corp Nulli Tertius
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 22:37:00 -
[119] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Behr Oroo wrote:[quote=Friggz]I havent lied about anything. My intentions are truly to create more PVP. You are the one making assumptions about my intentions based on your own bias against industrial toons. only a dumb i*diot would believe it would bring more pvp.
That's your opinion. I disagree with you. You may call me what you want. I dont take forums personally. I came to this forum to discuss a feature that I think would be helpful to the game and I will continue to do so. Your own responses make you less and less credible in the discussion at hand. |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
506
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 22:40:00 -
[120] - Quote
Behr Oroo wrote:That's your opinion. I disagree with you. You may call me what you want. I dont take forums personally. I came to this forum to discuss a feature that I think would be helpful to the game and I will continue to do so. Your own responses make you less and less credible in the discussion at hand. To be fair you did post an idea that is designed to work exclusively on people who are AFK (and therefore cannot fight back)
Not that I mean to imply that both parties need to be able to fight back for PVP to occur, it's just that it's somewhat obvious that you are not looking for fights. You just want the other guy to go away. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |