Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18284
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 19:15:26 -
[7141] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:It means they know it is active at least once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute. As opposed to them knowing it is active at least once a every 24 hours for at least a fraction of a minute.
It does not break anything.
It does however dramatically increase the chance of human error. An afk cloaky camper would have to be somewhat skilled to avoid getting caught every now and then when he or she is at the pub longer than planned and pass the 5 hour time limit.
The horrors of implicit counterplay.
People wont rat with you in local for several days after you attack something most of the time. Being active once every 5 hours destroys the effect of AFK cloaking and thus, the only counter we have to local.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 19:49:32 -
[7142] - Quote
Being active once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute does not entail that there must be available targets you are compelled to attack simply because you had to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop to reload ammo charges.
There is no connection between reloading charges and attacking ratting ships.
There are incidentally many other "counters to local".
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
841
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 20:49:30 -
[7143] - Quote
Yea I've got to admit I'm confused now.
I thought we didn't want any solution to interfere with active cloakers; but five hours is a generous offer no? If that timespan is unacceptable to you, then you're basically saying you want AFK cloaking to exist.
I came here to see if it were possible to have two-way interaction, without putting too much strain on the hunter (because if he's dodging probes all the time, he can't very well hunt) yet assuming the "true" AFKer (logs in after downtime, stays there 23.5 hours) was something we didn't want.
Now I feel betrayed. I must assume all this "we think AFK cloaking is bad but we want a more balanced approach than just nerf it into the ground" was horsecrap? What you really think is "don't touch AFK cloaking at all". All this talk about observatory arrays and 'putting in mutual effort' was nonsense I presume? Got it.
Five hours allows to come home, log in and cloak up, grab dinner, check on the kid's homework, do the dishes and the laundry, file some paperwork and start playing in the evening with several hours on the counter still. Those who would rat with you in system for three or four hours will still be prey- those who'd leave system wouldn't have fallen for a true AFK cloaker either. I don't see how this breaks anything, unless -and now we get to the good part- unless you come out and admit you want to put in NO effort.
We talked about effort and risk- the effort to get there (risk of running into camps and all that), risking your expensive ship, the 'opportunity cost' but it was nothing but fog to obscure the simple truth you want to put in zero effort and zero risk- yet expect a 'reward' of sorts, yes?
And here I was, hoping observatory arrays and delayed local would offer more PvP opportunities for both sides (two way street and all that, remember?). But you want none of it. You're not looking for PvP at all. I understand it clearly now. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18286
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:26:13 -
[7144] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Being active once every 5 hours for at least a fraction of a minute does not entail that there must be available targets you are compelled to attack simply because you had to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop to reload ammo charges.
There is no connection between reloading charges and attacking ratting ships.
The problem is the people you are camping will know you are active and not AFK and thus will not provide targets.
Jerghul wrote: There are incidentally many other "counters to local".
Such as? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18286
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:27:32 -
[7145] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Yea I've got to admit I'm confused now.
I thought we didn't want any solution to interfere with active cloakers; but five hours is a generous offer no? If that timespan is unacceptable to you, then you're basically saying you want AFK cloaking to exist.
AFK cloaking needs to exist so long as local exists. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5291
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:55:27 -
[7146] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Yah, I frequent wormholes a couple times a week. Its the safest way to get to high sec.
The idea was to reload the cloak once the 5 hours worth of charges loaded in the cloak are used. I dont care if you can carry 6 months worth of charges in your cargo hold. The only criteria is that you have to reload the cloak at least once every 5 hours.
Its a pretty low threshold suggestion that adresses only the afk component of afk cloaky camping. The ship has to be actively managed at least every once in a while. That is all.
Content meaning many things. Including not being rooster-blocked by afk cloaky campers closing up systems so we cannot catch ratters when we roam through afk cloaky camped systems (I do not really think cloaky campers make space less safe. They just make space less used).
There is no reason to gimp ATK cloaking ships.
Your idea was bad months ago when you proposed it, it is bad now.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5291
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 23:57:14 -
[7147] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Yea I've got to admit I'm confused now.
I thought we didn't want any solution to interfere with active cloakers; but five hours is a generous offer no? If that timespan is unacceptable to you, then you're basically saying you want AFK cloaking to exist.
We'd get nowhere. People would cloak, go AFK for 5 hours then come back. People would still whine incessantly. If anything they might whine more because instead of literally going AFK for almost 24 hours, now everyone would KNOW that the guy is coming back in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 hours.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 05:01:16 -
[7148] - Quote
Teckos The idea is good. Nor are the ships gimped in any meaningful way.
It is steamlined with link bursts ammunition being introduced in november.
But thank you for sharing your opinion. It's always nice to see you use adjectives and adverbs and stuff.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18286
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 10:39:05 -
[7149] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Teckos The idea is good. Nor are the ships gimped in any meaningful way.
It is steamlined with link bursts ammunition being introduced in november. Also nicely streamline with alpha clone arrival. There is a risk of afk-cloaky camper accounts being unsubbed. Which hardly matter in an rl economic sense, but could cause a slight drop in player numbers on the server which is not good. But does not matter after alpha clones arrive as those numbers will easily fill any gap.
So we are approaching a good time to make a change.
But thank you for sharing your opinion. It's always nice to see you use adjectives and adverbs and stuff.
Brokk The only negatives from an afk-cloaky camping perspective that I see are:
Afk cloaky camping becomes slightly greater than 0-effort Some chance of human error arises that might occassionally allow a afk-cloaky camper to be scanned down.
The second point occuring only if the afk cloaky camper remains afk for more than 5 hours and is particularly unlucky. This to me is a good thing. The afk-cloaky camper is no longer absolutely invulnerable and content is added as there is now a point to using combat probes outside of accessable d-scan range. Something might be found once every blue moon.
Human error is a great content provider.
You are still destroying the only counter to local, people will not rat with a red in system under your plan because they will always assume they are active simply because there is a 5 hour timer. Equally you have to be at your computer in order top cloak so no more week long AFK camping because it is impossible, nobody is going to alarm clock and run back home from work to camp a system to get kills.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 11:33:27 -
[7150] - Quote
Quote: You are still destroying the only counter to local, people will not rat with a red in system under your plan because they will always assume they are active simply because there is a 5 hour timer. Equally you have to be at your computer in order top cloak so no more week long AFK camping because it is impossible, nobody is going to alarm clock and run back home from work to camp a system to get kills.
Its not the "only counter to local", nor will it destroy ratting (which is what you are saying). Nor do you have to set your alarm clock.
When tired; log-off and go to bed.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18286
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 11:50:22 -
[7151] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:
Its not the "only counter to local"
That's the second time you have said this, what other counters are there to local?
Jerghul wrote:
nor will it destroy ratting (which is what you are saying)
Thats not what I am saying
Jerghul wrote:
. Nor do you have to set your alarm clock.
When tired; log-off and go to bed.
And you vanish from local which means its now safe to rat, the moment you log back in they dock up and stay there.
Hence why I say you destroy the only counter to local. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 12:59:45 -
[7152] - Quote
Anything that can catch a ratting ship is a "counter to local" .
It seemed you were suggesting that if ratters assumed afk-players were online at least every 5 hours, they would stop ratting.
It is not safe to rat if local is empty. Once you undock your ship you are vulnerable to unsolicited pvp. In its many forms.
Empty local means among other things that roaming gangs have a good shot at shotgunning a system and catching ratters.
Which is a lot harder to do with afk cloaky campers rooster-blocking systems.
If you want to rooster-block players actively seeking pvp, then at least have to common courtesy to switch to your afk cloaky camper desktop once every 5 hours :-).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18287
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:28:33 -
[7153] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Anything that can catch a ratting ship is a "counter to local" .
No its not. A counter to local would be not showing up on it or somehow making it unreliable. Nothing stops you from showing up on it and the only tactic that can make it unreliable is AFK camping the system 24 hours a day for several days.
Jerghul wrote: It seemed you were suggesting that if ratters assumed afk-players were online at least every 5 hours, they would stop ratting.
They would, hence why I point out your idea is bad as it means we have nothing to counter local.
Jerghul wrote: It is not safe to rat if local is empty. Once you undock your ship you are vulnerable to unsolicited pvp. In its many forms.
Empty local means among other things that roaming gangs have a good shot at shotgunning a system and catching ratters.
If there is nobody in local then there is nobody in that system to kill you, thus you are safe.
Once again, your idea is bad, it will make local 100% accurate free instant intel you cannot counter.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:41:48 -
[7154] - Quote
Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively.
So you are claiming 5 hour ammunition capacity will kill ratting. So the "counter to local" remains intact by your own words.
A ratter is safe until he is caught. Which can happen fast. Faster and more often in fact if afk cloaky campers were not rooster blocking other options.
Perhaps you should create a thread on the pros and cons of free intel. Its a bit off topic frankly.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
651
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 16:51:11 -
[7155] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively.
No one can catch a ratter who is watching local in sov null, given any ship can warp out/jump out before getting tackled when they see a red appear in local. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5293
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 17:34:26 -
[7156] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively.
No, what it means was the ratter was not paying attention or had some bad luck (gets scrammed by a rat just as you jump in and you pick his anomaly to warp to).
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Nir Trild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 18:24:22 -
[7157] - Quote
Hi, omg is it really serious? A "centralized Official AFK CloakingGäó thread with 347 pages of well discussed points about being...wtf^^. Afk is afk.
And if you have a massive influence on the gaming experience of other players while being afk, my experience in many years is that most people weren't accepting it and didn't want to wait for fight or change system or entity but quit the game sooner or later.
Because most are not blaming a camper but ccp and the game design for their game experience. Every gamer knows being influenced by someone who is afk isn't a thrilling thing.
May every thing be true whats been written about a importance to camp systems, the possibility to do it afk is a game destroying NEP and a reason for burning out vet recruiters and content drivers under the current sov mechanics.
It hits the smaller guys harder who often drive the content and reduces the activity in null in general.
Since the camping toons are used as skill injector farms the problems about it are even getting harder last time.
What people FEEL about a game will every time make their decision to stay or stop paying for it - whatever you may explain them here.
Just my 2 cents^^. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5295
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 18:26:44 -
[7158] - Quote
Nir Trild wrote:Hi, omg is it really serious? A "centralized Official AFK CloakingGäó thread with 347 pages of well discussed points about being...wtf^^. Afk is afk. And if you have a massive influence on the gaming experience of other players while being afk, my experience in many years is that most people weren't accepting it and didn't want to wait for fight or change system or entity but quit the game sooner or later. Because most are not blaming a camper but ccp and the game design for their game experience. Every gamer knows being influenced by someone who is afk isn't a thrilling thing. May every thing be true whats been written about a importance to camp systems, the possibility to do it afk is a game destroying NEP and a reason for burning out vet recruiters and content drivers under the current sov mechanics. It hits the smaller guys harder who often drive the content and reduces the activity in null in general. Since the camping toons are used as skill injector farms the problems about it are even getting harder last time. What people FEEL about a game will every time make their decision to stay or stop paying for it - whatever you may explain them here. Just my 2 cents^^.
Actually, there is an added sense of danger when ratting with a cloaked ship/pilot in the same system. When I did it I found it exciting for two reasons....1 he might actually be ATK (unlikely as he was in Germany and I was several TZs different) and I found it exciting that I was ratting and even getting escalations right under his AFK nose.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 20:12:37 -
[7159] - Quote
Sonya Human error is a powerful content creator. Things go wrong and ratters get caught.. Still, I was not suggesting getting rid of afk cloaky camping. I am championing a 5 hour ammunition capacity charge system for the cloaking device.
Trild Yepp, high player turnover and poor retainment is a matter of record. Most of the customers that really disliked content removal by afk-cloaky campers have voted with their wallets and left the game.
Teckos Human error is a part of the game. Which is why scripts and automatic responses are illegal. Humans are inattentive and ratters get caught any number of ways.
If anything, afk cloaky campers keep them safer by encouraging them to stay docked.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 20:15:56 -
[7160] - Quote
Just be happy I am not suggesting a "cloak fatigue" system that would harmonize with jump fatigue (introduced to remove a different content destroyer) :-).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5310
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 20:34:12 -
[7161] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Human error is a powerful content creator. Things go wrong and ratters get caught.. Still, I was not suggesting getting rid of afk cloaky camping. I am championing a 5 hour ammunition capacity charge system for the cloaking device.
Trild Yepp, high player turnover and poor retainment is a matter of record. Most of the customers that really disliked content removal by afk-cloaky campers have voted with their wallets and left the game.
Teckos Human error is a part of the game. Which is why scripts and automatic responses are illegal. Humans are inattentive and ratters get caught any number of ways.
If anything, afk cloaky campers keep them safer by encouraging them to stay docked.
In other words, that a ratter was caught does not mean there was a counter to local.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
653
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 20:58:30 -
[7162] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Sonya Human error is a powerful content creator. Things go wrong and ratters get caught.. Still, I was not suggesting getting rid of afk cloaky camping. I am championing a 5 hour ammunition capacity charge system for the cloaking device.
That nerfs many other playstyles. Cloaks are used for far more than blops in null. I have a character that hasn't docked in around three months. That nomadic playstyle goes out the window with your suggestion. That means I'm not roaming around low/null/WHs for weeks or months on end where you CAN catch me anymore, it means I'm simply not venturing that far out, giving you less targets and less content in general.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "ammunition capacity charge" but if you're suggesting cloak fuel and/or some kind of physical item you need to cloak, please no. Cargo holds are already tight enough as it is, assuming you don't have the luxury of docking in a supplied station every day. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 05:32:15 -
[7163] - Quote
Teckos Incorrect, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
Sonya akf cloaky camping certainly does nuke many other playing styles. The issues you mentioned seemed pretty marginal if using a command burst approach to cloak charges as I suggested.
Anyway, something will need to be done with the advent of alpha clones. My suggestion is not very intrusive. CCP can nerf afk-cloaky camping far more than that (see jump fatigue for an example of a proper nerf hammer).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18292
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 09:30:16 -
[7164] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively.
No it hasn't, it still showed up in local.
Jerghul wrote: So you are claiming 5 hour ammunition capacity will kill ratting. So the "counter to local" remains intact by your own words.
For the love of god man read. I am saying the 5 hour timer would mean everyone knows the cloaked ship is active and will not undock, thus AFK cloaking will no longer counter local because everyone knows you are not AFK. Its not ratting its killing, its the counter to local you are killing.
Jerghul wrote: A ratter is safe until he is caught. Which can happen fast. Faster and more often in fact if afk cloaky campers were not rooster blocking other options.
Perhaps you should create a thread on the pros and cons of free intel. Its a bit off topic frankly.
Its the very heart of AFK cloaking, the only reason it is done is to counter local. For every numbnuts you catch just by just entering local and warping blind to an anom you will miss another 1000 who will be long gone thanks to local telling them you have entered system.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 10:46:56 -
[7165] - Quote
Local is countered if the ratter is caught. By definition. Afk-cloaky camping does not meet that definition and is thus not a counter to local.
Ratting has been killed if ratting ships never undock. Which you claim is the effect of a cloak charge.
The only thing a ratter knows is that an afk-cloaky camper now has to actively recharge his or her cloak once every 5 hours if the cloak is to function. Thus, ratting ships do not know if the player with the cloaked ship is afk or not.
It has been successfully argued here that afk cloaky camping is done to generate 0-effort kills at the convenience of the afk cloaky camping player.
That local in null-sec need counters is a completely different discussion deserving of its own thread. Perhaps. There probably are such threads at the bottom of the board somewhere.
Afk cloaking camping did serve an important purpose. It helped increase the Eve server player count. This will no longer be needed with the advent of alpha clones.
Winter is coming, bro. Be less entrenched and try to find a low impact change you can live with.
Do you really want CCP to come up with the equivalent of a cloak fatigue timer?
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18292
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 18:42:04 -
[7166] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Local is countered if the ratter is caught. By definition. Afk-cloaky camping does not meet that definition and is thus not a counter to local.
Ok lets make this easy on you. Do you show up in local when you enter system?
Jerghul wrote: Ratting has been killed if ratting ships never undock. Which you claim is the effect of a cloak charge.
The only thing a ratter knows is that an afk-cloaky camper now has to actively recharge his or her cloak once every 5 hours if the cloak is to function. Thus, ratting ships do not know if the player with the cloaked ship is afk or not.
Pointed out the flaw in your attempted argument. They know he is not AFK because your idea forces the cloaker to be ATK at least once every 5 hours and given there is no timer next to the name people who log in will not know if they have 5 hours or 5 seconds.
Jerghul wrote: It has been successfully argued here that afk cloaky camping is done to generate 0-effort kills at the convenience of the afk cloaky camping player.
It was a line of argument by probably the most anti pvp player this game has known for a long time. Having to spend a week where you cannot earn anything, cannot move anywhere, cannot target anything and cannot shoot at anything to get your big game is far from 0 effort. 0 effort would be looking at local and clicking dock the second a not blue pops up in it.
Jerghul wrote: That local in null-sec need counters is a completely different discussion deserving of its own thread. Perhaps. There probably are such threads at the bottom of the board somewhere.
It is the very heart of the "problem" here. The only reason anyone ever complains about afk camping is because it messed with the intel they get from local.
Jerghul wrote: Afk cloaking camping did serve an important purpose. It helped increase the Eve server player count. This will no longer be needed with the advent of alpha clones.
Winter is coming, bro. Be less entrenched and try to find a low impact change you can live with.
Do you really want CCP to come up with the equivalent of a cloak fatigue timer?
I dont want CCP to do anything on this, AFK cloaking is the only counter to local so it must exist so long as local does. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5353
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 19:01:01 -
[7167] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Jerghul wrote:Anything that can catch ratters is "a counter to local". Anything that catches a ratter has by definition countered local effectively. No one can catch a ratter who is watching local in sov null, given any ship can warp out/jump out before getting tackled when they see a red appear in local.
In light of Jerghul's insistence on a false claim....
Sonya is correct. If I am "doing it right" watching local and somebody jumps in, unless I have had some bad luck they will never catch me (baring cheating).
I will have advanced warning and have plenty of time to warp off.
Thus a ratter being caught does not demonstrate that local was countered, but that human nature was at work.
Now if one wants to argue that human nature is a counter for local, then by that same argument we shouldn't seek to circumvent human nature when it comes to AFK cloaking.
In short, Jerghul is just posting nonsense.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions
270
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 19:37:27 -
[7168] - Quote
I was about to come and answer to Jerghul's opinions but I see that someone has already done it for me.
Wormholer for life.
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
654
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 19:48:00 -
[7169] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:In light of Jerghul's insistence on a false claim....
Sonya is correct. If I am "doing it right" watching local and somebody jumps in, unless I have had some bad luck they will never catch me (baring cheating).
I will have advanced warning and have plenty of time to warp off.
Thus a ratter being caught does not demonstrate that local was countered, but that human nature was at work.
Now if one wants to argue that human nature is a counter for local, then by that same argument we shouldn't seek to circumvent human nature when it comes to AFK cloaking.
In short, Jerghul is just posting nonsense.
And this is also ignoring the fact of intel channels warning of reds coming from 10+ jumps out, which makes it even safer than simply having local. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 20:10:16 -
[7170] - Quote
Baltec "The counter to local" is to act too quickly for a player to react to the information he has. Be it a small gang roam, or a with a cyno and a web from a normally afk cloaky camper.
There is no flaw to my logic. It makes no inherent difference if an afk-cloaky camper is active once a day, or active once every 5 hours. Its not the act of maximising a desk top that determines if a afk cloaky comper will seek combat.
I don't actually consider afk cloaky camping derived combat to be pvp. The variables are controlled too rigidly by the afk cloaky camper for it to be much more than the pvp equivalent of a super blop dropping on whatever ratting carrier they feel like blooping.
We saw what happened to the blops. Enhancing the number of players on the server is the only reason afk cloaky camping is still a thing. And that justification is gone with the next update.
Pech You are incorrect, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
Sonya Sure intel can work. And often does. And often does not. Human error is a powerful content creator. If ships actually undock.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |