open All Channels
seplocked Warfare & Tactics
blankseplocked AFK stealth bullying - redesigning the cloak
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2010.07.07 00:03:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Innocent Murderer
Originally by: The Next Guy
No the core issue here is local chat mechanics.
If you take away local, then...
... then there'd be no AFK cloaking problem.
How would that remove the cloaking problem? That would remove the ability to see the problem, not the actual problem itself.

Seriously, you need to switch to an avatar that looks like the 13-year-old girl you're roleplaying. The whiny, entitled persona doesn't fit the Brutor avatar.

RE your question: Why would you have a problem with a cloaker who's AFK and who you don't know is there? (As a matter of fact, why the hell would the cloaker stay logged in and AFK instead of just logging out?) The thing that has you quivering and sweating in bed at night seems to be the psychological warfare. You're exploiting the Local chat channel to guarantee absolute, perfect safety in 0.0, but the AFK cloaker hurts your feelings by exploiting the same channel right back at you, taking away your certainty of safety.

No LOCAL, no AFK cloakers. Cloakers will log out when they're done playing, log in when they're ready to hunt. Problem solved. Far be it for me to suggest that deep down, what you really want is no cloakers period.

Quote:
Also, you have yet to post a negative to adding a fuel requirement to cloaks. I don't see any problems with allowing 16 hours of cloaking in any ship. Do you?

Frankly I've never considered the proposition. What on earth would be the positive? OK... I'm taking a moment... well first thing that I think of is how this would totally screw anyone who inhabits w-space...

Zalafas
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.07 01:01:00 - [152]
 

Wait, if you couldn't cloak indefinitely, couldn't someone just log out at a safe spot in a 0.0 system, and log in periodically to check for targets? I think this is what one of the previous posters was trying to say -- you can become "invulnerable" by logging, too, if no one has aggressed you. That would actually be more dangerous, I'd think, since you don't (necessarily) know that they've logged out in the system.

I want to point out that my other characters are w-space residents, and I can tell you that I have no idea whether someone's in system at all, except for the occasional dscan (which doesn't get anything beyond 14.4 AU). And yet, I do just fine. Over the past few months, my main has lost a couple PvE drakes in w-space, but the only mining barge loss (a retriever) was when our first pos got blown up.

I imagine things might be different if I piloted more expensive ships -- I can easily write off the ships I fly in w-space atm. But for me, the only thing that could make w-space residence a net negative would be losing our first pos -- and even then, I think we've made that back already. And we don't even have local, to begin with.

I've said this before, and I'll say this again -- if cloak is to be nerfed, it should be for some other reason, not because some people in nullsec want to be totally safe.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.07 02:25:00 - [153]
 

Perhaps you've been misled by my semantics.

Let me fix that.

First, let me recommend that you go die in an aggressive oxidizing reaction, the sooner, the better (in-game, of course). I don't fly in safe space. I fly in space that is routinely intruded upon by roaming gangs, random neutrals, and large, angry capital fleets. Stop pretending that 0.0 is safe--clearly you don't live there.

Taking away local does not fix the fact that someone can remain in an invulnerable state, undetected, indefinitely. It simply hides that (and makes it a helluva lot easier on invading forces/raiders, which I get the feeling you would like).

I don't care if someone who is cloaked is AFK at times. I care that there's no penalty for being AFK indefinitely and then be able to choose targets selectively with no risk. As cloaking is currently, a person can stay in a system forever--nothing can force them out. They can endlessly harass and kill people at leisure and then resume their invulnerable state until such time as they choose--hours, days, weeks, or even months later. There is no penalty for being logged on and cloaked in a system--while doing so still grants that person the ability to see local and occasionally pop out some probes and/or scan for anomalies a person might be ratting in. This is an unbalanced game mechanic. You and I disagree over a fundamental issue: that a person should be able to cloak forever. No other activatable module in the game uses no cap, no ammo, and no fuel, with the exception of civilian railguns. Cloaks are extremely useful and powerful tools. Minimum drawbacks, maximum benefits.

I propose to fix this imbalance by simply adding a fuel requirement (CCP can rack their brains on that one, it's not exactly the most difficult problem in the world) that gives people the ability to cloak for an extended period of time (16-24 hours). Once they have used a cloak for over that time, they run out of fuel and can't cloak anymore. This would result in several things: people who would AFK-cloak most of the day, perhaps picking a few people off here and there, (which is what currently happens) could still do that, and then they would have to acquire more fuel, presumably outside of the solar system when their fuel runs out if they want to continue to cloak. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to do things such as spam local 23.5/7/365 or perma-AFK-cloak. Difficult, but not impossible...although you may have some trouble finding a way around with your rather limited intellect that you've displayed thus far. Other people would use cloaks selectively if they thought they were being probed out, or would warp around constantly (which would require them to be present at the controls, unless they feel like violating the EULA).

People would have to use discretion when activating their cloaks, rather than use them as a get-out-of-jail-free-while-passing-go-and-collecting-200-dollars card. End result: cloak fuel manufacturers make money (random side effect, but one that should be considered), perma-AFK-cloaking is much more difficult, and cloaks are no longer the end-all be-all module of EVE, while still retaining their inherent tactical value.

You have thus far failed to put forth any sort of drawback to adding a fuel requirement with a reasonable time limit. At this point your arguments have become thinly disguised rants against nullsec alliances, as all your "solutions" would screw over people who have fought to hold sovereign space, and really help people who go for quick, easy kills. Go cry over in CAOD about taking away local, not here. And perhaps post a decent argument while you're off QQing.

Larinioides cornutus
Posted - 2010.07.07 02:50:00 - [154]
 

Cloak doesnt need fixing. It is like in real life, one is not a threat and should not be paid attention until he wipe out his explosive belt. Americans should stop all funding on finding terrorists.

Induc
Amarr
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:40:00 - [155]
 

The way you describe it sounds like the your only concern with afk cloaking is that they're invulnerable and impossible to catch.
But how do they differ from someone logging in every few hours to check for targets and then logs off again?

After killing someone they can just warp between safespots until the aggression timer's away and then log out, impossible to catch. The only difference between them and afk cloakers is that you know when they're afk or not.

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
You have thus far failed to put forth any sort of drawback to adding a fuel requirement with a reasonable time limit.

You still haven't answered how solve the w-space problem. PI won't solve it. You can't expect everyone in w-space to have a POS and that the wh won't collapse behind them.

I can see why you would want a fuel requirement on prototype cloaks, but cov ops cloaks? Ships that can fit them have enough drawbacks as it is.

Also, 0.0 is completely risk free - as long as you dock up when someone appears in local.

Zalafas
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:42:00 - [156]
 

Here's a drawback to this cloak-fuel fix and others: CCP has other things to fix or enhance.

Here's another: any change can result in unexpected consequences (including, but not limited to, bugs).

Here's yet another: How does this affect the cargo a blockade runner can carry, since it now needs cloak fuel?

Or another: How does this affect ships that already use lots of cargo for ammo or other things, beyond blockade runners?

And another: How do you balance the cloak-fuel requirements? If you balance fuel requirements around what frigates carry, then you could load up a blockade runner with cloak fuel and AFK cloak for a long time. Or, you could balance fuel requirements around what blockade runners carry, and then frigates are in trouble.

Lack of drawbacks? EVERY change has drawbacks. In particular, the first two I mentioned apply to EVERY software change. You need to prove that someone should implement your change, not that there's "no drawbacks" in your opinion.

And then there's the fact that someone could just log out in your 0.0 system, and log on every so often to check for targets. Sure, you wouldn't see them in local, but the danger would be the same. Hence the talk of removing local.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:44:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: Innocent Murderer on 07/07/2010 03:50:40
Edit: didn't see that last post there.

Well, if a person's in a wormhole longer than 16 hours, and they don't have PI set up because they aren't inhabiting the system...tough nuggets. Assuming the fuel lasts 16 hours, then you have 16 hours to do whatever it is you need to do that involves a cloak. That's the point about the fuel: you have a long time to cloak, but you can't do it forever.

Also, if a person's not logged on then that's just great. I've never been shot at by a person who isn't logged in. (Next thing you know, someone will propose a nerf so that nobody can log off)

In response to your "drawbacks":
1. Yeah, CCP has loads of things they need to fix. This is one of them. Also, thank you for implying that you also think it needs a fix.
2. Oh no, a bug. If CCP didn't release anything that might have a bug in it, we'd still be flying around in frigates, thinking those were top-notch.
3. Dedicated fuel bay.
4. There's a reason not every ship has 8 high, mid, and low slots. You can't have everything you want. You want a cloak and lots of ammo, well, balance how long you want to cloak with how much ammo you want to use.
5. See #3. Also, varying fuel consumption with ship mass may work. But I'd leave the exact numbers to CCP, since they're a crap-ton better at things like advanced calculus than I am.

FeralShadow
NME1
Posted - 2010.07.07 04:25:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: FeralShadow on 07/07/2010 04:29:24
Ok... So to give everybody an idea of what actually happens with stealth bullying, I will give you all an example of myself getting destroyed by a stealthing ship who is afk in the system until striking.

A previous alliance of mine used to own a remote system that we all used for ratting and making isk in. One day, a person came into local. We docked up, got into pvp ships, and couldn't find him. We launched probes, and couldn't find him. Our only guess as to what he was in, then, is that he was in a cloaking ship. We then docked up, fearing he had a gang behind him, and sent scouts to neighboring systems and found a couple people that were in his corp a few jumps away. By the time we got there to destroy his buddies, they were long gone, but the cloaker stayed in system. He stayed in there for days, logging on right after downtime and sitting in system cloaked all day long until downtime happened the next day. A week went by, another week. Those that were sick of sitting docked in station all day long for fear of getting pounced ventured out to rat some, sending scouts to check the neighboring systems. Then the time came, late one night, it was just he and I in the ratting system, and I really needed the isk. The alliance warfare was taxing on my isk, and so I had to make some isk. While ratting, he decloaked next to me in a Falcon, pointed me, and perma-jammed me. His buddies in Dominix's jumped in and warped and destroyed me. The domi's left, the falcon warped to safe spot and cloaked, and there he stayed for days more, I dont even know how many more people he killed.

The point is nobody should be able to do that with no hazard to themselves (outside of me being lucky enough to have alliance mates around to react fast enough, there's nothing we could do).

I know some of you are going to read that and say "blah blah whine more blah blah" but it's a prime example of why cloaks are overpowered. We all know and recognize that cloaks have incredibly important uses. That shouldn't be one of them.

-FeralShadow

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.07 05:07:00 - [159]
 

Edited by: Lia''Vael on 07/07/2010 05:10:47
Originally by: Innocent Murderer
I don't care if someone who is cloaked is AFK at times. I care that there's no penalty for being AFK indefinitely and then be able to choose targets selectively with no risk.


Someone can AFK in a station indefinitely, them being away from keyboard simply means they aren't doing anything productive or anything at all. Cloaks already have their drawbacks if you ever paid attention to the fitting information but I'm guessing you don't. To add only a few class of ships can warp while cloaked, and only with a certain module, force recons prolly being the most famous. The titles covert ops, black ops, recon, all have the same thing in common, stealth. Without it they're screwed, the pilots need to think what they have to do for a successful mission, if the criteria isn't met why risk it.

If you set yourself up as bait and get a stealthy pilot then good, if you are just a juicy target all alone then honestly you deserve to lose your ship, local is a very good resource, if you cant find what ship they're in assume its cloaked and prepare. This should be obvious, hell my character is only like 4 months old and I know this, how sad is that? I even came from a certain game whose acronym is of surprise, I'll give you a hint starts with a "W". In my short time with EVE, local has been the cheapest tool, in one quick look around you can tell how many people are there, who are all in the same corp, and with a quick gloss over d scan in a few areas you can tell whats all around you, and based on the local character list guess who might be in what.

EVE has taught me you are safe nowhere, having a cloak doesn't mean you are invincible, some fits are completely incompatible with a cloak, it is just a logistic buffer, information is power and we all have it, it depends how you use it. Talking about information FeralShadow had it and his old alliance failed to utilize it, the falcon and his buddies paid attention to the information they were given and succeeded. If FeralShadow's alliance had baited the recon would prolly be dead but like silly fools they showed their PvP ships and schedules to an enemy gathering information.

You (Innocent Murderer) have thus far failed to prove you have the mental capacity needed for EVE.

captain foivos
Posted - 2010.07.07 05:11:00 - [160]
 

GB2WoW.

Paul99
Posted - 2010.07.07 10:35:00 - [161]
 

Edited by: Paul99 on 07/07/2010 10:35:52
Originally by: Paul99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they have the log EXPLOIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who's they and what's the exploit?
Originally by: Paul99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it schouldn't be that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What shouldn't, and why not?


Originally by: Paul99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe if LOCAL is REMOVED than 0.0 space will really start to be enjoyable to solo/small gang pvp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe if IDIOCY is REMOVED than the forums will really start to be enjoyable to reasonable/intelligent posters.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Innocent Murderer I don't expact you to agree, you are so frustrated, you spend all day posting and not playing eve. Everbody knows that the log trick used by ratters like yourself to survive in 0.0 space has to vanish. I will not continue the discussion with you because you have to low IQ to comprehend the diffrence thare has to be between high sec low sec and 0.0. Go back to your job that is posting all day and leave the game to the ones who are actually playing it

foksieloy
Minmatar
Rockets ponies and rainbows
Posted - 2010.07.07 10:40:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
I care that there's no penalty for being AFK indefinitely and then be able to choose targets selectively with no risk.


Seems no one introduced to concept of bait to your part of the universe. Your lack of knowledge is hilarious.

Well, now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.07 15:35:00 - [163]
 

You clearly have not run into the 13-year-old WoW player who doesn't go for bait, choosing instead to spam local from server start-up to downtime.

Bait is not the solution to a cloaked person, because there is nothing that can force them to decloak. Yes, I used the word force. A very dangerous word in the EVE lexicon, but one that's suitable to describe the solution to perma-cloaking.

Still waiting for a con to the fuel idea that isn't the result of somebody failing to think about it for at least five seconds...

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:59:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
You clearly have not run into the 13-year-old WoW player who doesn't go for bait, choosing instead to spam local from server start-up to downtime.

Bait is not the solution to a cloaked person, because there is nothing that can force them to decloak. Yes, I used the word force. A very dangerous word in the EVE lexicon, but one that's suitable to describe the solution to perma-cloaking.

Still waiting for a con to the fuel idea that isn't the result of somebody failing to think about it for at least five seconds...


If someone is spamming local you know you can block them right? Baiting is the solution to alot, it's just like hunting or fishing, if the bait isn't attractive or seems fishy (hehe fishing) the mark wont go for it.

Why do you want to force someone from cloak when there are already quite a few drawbacks to just cloaking? Oh we should read into it then, you want to be able to control, when something is out of your sphere of control you lose your sense of security, someone is there and you cant force them to fight instead they can take the sneaky steps to succeed at manipulating you, you know what can kill that pilot? Preparation and vigilance things you so clearly lack on a large scale.

A few cons have already been stated but the one that rings the most true is don't fix what isn't broken the resources and time would be better spent on something that does need to be fixed.

Now bartender where is my drink.

Innocent Murderer
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.08 05:43:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Lia'Vael

Now bartender where is my drink.


I think we could all use one, TBQFH.

Deacon Palmer
Hulkageddon Orphanage
Posted - 2010.07.08 05:52:00 - [166]
 

Please stop referring to Hello Kitty Online as a bad thing. I think it rules.

Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:56:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Innocent Murderer
Originally by: Lia'Vael

Now bartender where is my drink.


I think we could all use one, TBQFH.


I know I could use one, your tears and anguish have left me rather parched especially the tall glass of fear to an already benign enemy who can be easily thwarted with only an ounce of preparation and thought.

Originally by: Deacon Palmer
Please stop referring to Hello Kitty Online as a bad thing. I think it rules.


Hello Kitty Online is too hardcore for cloak whiners, farmville on the other hand is something they would enjoy with all the safety and security they want without any thought needed.

Silv Talaran
Caldari
Extemporaneous
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:50:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Amanda Mor

You can fix local all you want, it won't change anything - the AFK cloaker would just have to type in local to make his name appear (as in a WH), or decloak 150km from a busy belt and then recloak and go back to an hour or two worth of TV watching, and he's still able to cause a psychological effect on the whole system.



I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Bing0Wings
Posted - 2010.07.08 11:52:00 - [169]
 

For the love of God!

Someone lock this thread. It's trollfest.


Lady Ayeipsia
Posted - 2010.07.08 13:56:00 - [170]
 

I would still like someone to explain to me how an AFK cloaked ship is a bully? Is it really so terrifying that one lone cloaked ship could really disrupt your operations and plans that horrible?

I've never dwelled in Nul Sec or low, only empire and WHs. So maybe I just am missing a mechanic here. Still, why is there such fear of a cloaked ship?

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:17:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
I would still like someone to explain to me how an AFK cloaked ship is a bully? Is it really so terrifying that one lone cloaked ship could really disrupt your operations and plans that horrible?

I've never dwelled in Nul Sec or low, only empire and WHs. So maybe I just am missing a mechanic here. Still, why is there such fear of a cloaked ship?


Covert Cyno.

That one just became 20 stealth bombers and recons.

captain foivos
Posted - 2010.07.08 15:31:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Silv Talaran

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.


SUMMON THE WORMS

Desigre
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.08 16:21:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
I would still like someone to explain to me how an AFK cloaked ship is a bully? Is it really so terrifying that one lone cloaked ship could really disrupt your operations and plans that horrible?

I've never dwelled in Nul Sec or low, only empire and WHs. So maybe I just am missing a mechanic here. Still, why is there such fear of a cloaked ship?


Covert Cyno.

That one just became 20 stealth bombers and recons.


Thats not being bullie, thats useing game mechanics that is working as intended. ccp created that covert cyno thing for a reason.

Lol, well that just means you still should not be fearfull of that one cloaker. But instead fear the moment when your local spikes up with neurtals/hostiles.

still see no reason to nerf cloak.

If you choose to stay docked when you have friends in system, thats your choise. One afk cloaker is nothing, until he springs in action, decloaks and attacks someone. But then again thats why you are in fleet, right? So your friends can easily warp to you, right?


Seriously people. 0.0 is not safe and is not meant to be 100% safe. One afk cloaker is nothing if your smart about it. Have friends there, be in fleet for easy defence, etc... And dockup if local suddenly starts showing more then 1 hostile/neutral. This game requires use of brain that god gave you. This is not WoW, nor is 0.0 meant to be safe heaven to those living in there. Empire space and npc corps are nearly safe heaven, but even then theres suicide ganks as hulkageddon will demonstrate so nicely again soon.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.08 22:48:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: Desigre
Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
I would still like someone to explain to me how an AFK cloaked ship is a bully? Is it really so terrifying that one lone cloaked ship could really disrupt your operations and plans that horrible?

I've never dwelled in Nul Sec or low, only empire and WHs. So maybe I just am missing a mechanic here. Still, why is there such fear of a cloaked ship?


Covert Cyno.

That one just became 20 stealth bombers and recons.


Thats not being bullie, thats useing game mechanics that is working as intended. ccp created that covert cyno thing for a reason.

Lol, well that just means you still should not be fearfull of that one cloaker. But instead fear the moment when your local spikes up with neurtals/hostiles.

still see no reason to nerf cloak.

If you choose to stay docked when you have friends in system, thats your choise. One afk cloaker is nothing, until he springs in action, decloaks and attacks someone. But then again thats why you are in fleet, right? So your friends can easily warp to you, right?


Seriously people. 0.0 is not safe and is not meant to be 100% safe. One afk cloaker is nothing if your smart about it. Have friends there, be in fleet for easy defence, etc... And dockup if local suddenly starts showing more then 1 hostile/neutral. This game requires use of brain that god gave you. This is not WoW, nor is 0.0 meant to be safe heaven to those living in there. Empire space and npc corps are nearly safe heaven, but even then theres suicide ganks as hulkageddon will demonstrate so nicely again soon.


Yes, lets permantly have a gang of 10 to 20 people around where ever I go!

You haven't actually undocked in your entire Eve history, have you?

Mal Lokrano
Gallente
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.07.09 04:49:00 - [175]
 

Is that a dead horse? it sure doesn't look like it hmm...

Wait it is, it has just been beaten beyond all recognition.

Rolling Eyes

Fumitsugu
Posted - 2010.07.09 05:58:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Voith
Low Sec is going to suck until CCP adjusts it for 5+ years of mudflation.

Low security status needs a major penalty that can't be avoided with alts or second accounts. Gate guns need to be about quadrupled in damage wise. There needs to be more entrances to low-sec as well.


I read your response to Mynxee's thread on lowsec....I really think you should stick to Empire, bro.

Flesh Slurper
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:18:00 - [177]
 

I fail to see how an afk cloaker is an issue.

1) Since he is afk, he is no threat, the threat only occurs when he is not afk. Cloaked ships can not do anything, and all afk ships can not do anything either.

2) Cloaky ships are relatively weak compared to their non-cloaky counterparts. Non covert ops ships get penalties for just having a cloak on their ship. If he should happen to uncloak, then kill him. If you aren't able to defend against the afk cloaker you are so scared of by either force or paying attention, you probably shouldn't be ratting or mining in null anyway because a normal ship would come along and take you out just as easy.

3) not everywhere in null has somewhere where I can dock. If I am willing to make the tradeoff by either flying a fragile covert ops ship or nerfing the capabilities of a normal ship, then there shouldn't be an issue with me being a non-threat and going afk for a while while cloaked.

Larinioides cornutus
Posted - 2010.07.09 08:22:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Flesh Slurper
I fail to see how an afk cloaker is an issue.

1) Since he is afk, he is no threat, the threat only occurs when he is not afk. Cloaked ships can not do anything, and all afk ships can not do anything either.
Read my sig.

Originally by: Flesh Slurper

2) Cloaky ships are relatively weak compared to their non-cloaky counterparts. Non covert ops ships get penalties for just having a cloak on their ship. If he should happen to uncloak, then kill him. If you aren't able to defend against the afk cloaker you are so scared of by either force or paying attention, you probably shouldn't be ratting or mining in null anyway because a normal ship would come along and take you out just as easy.
Bolded the important bit. When somebody roams for target, he runs the risk of running into stuff too hard for him to chew as well as pay time for travelling. AFK cloakers need to go no where to fish its prey and when you can warp cloaked, you have all the time you want to analyze the target.

And second, when I have to pay attention to something for my own safety, it is a threat. There's no twist of tongue can turn that around.

Originally by: Flesh Slurper
3) not everywhere in null has somewhere where I can dock. If I am willing to make the tradeoff by either flying a fragile covert ops ship or nerfing the capabilities of a normal ship, then there shouldn't be an issue with me being a non-threat and going afk for a while while cloaked.

1) A (d**kstar) staging tower can be quickly set up when everyone are sleeping. Even if they rally some force to take it down you still win the ISK race because it takes less man hour for you to rat enough ISK for the tower then for them to take it down. But I guess it still incur some isk loss, much more then what a cov op cloak would cost so people heavily favour the second. So, buff staging tower? Or more realistically, nerf cloak.

2) Feel free to bring "normal" ships to afk cloak in any systems. It's perfectly balanced. You cannot compare them to sb/recon.

Teal deer: I doubt that you'd be able to "see" what you dont want to admit, not sure what's the point of our postings.

Voith
Posted - 2010.07.09 22:00:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Fumitsugu
Originally by: Voith
Low Sec is going to suck until CCP adjusts it for 5+ years of mudflation.

Low security status needs a major penalty that can't be avoided with alts or second accounts. Gate guns need to be about quadrupled in damage wise. There needs to be more entrances to low-sec as well.


I read your response to Mynxee's thread on lowsec....I really think you should stick to Empire, bro.


I haven't been in Empire in 2.. almost 3 years. How can I stay there?

I realize that you have no actual ability to refute any point people are making, so you're trying to play some sort of Internet blowhard/Toughguy thing, but everyone sees through it kiddo. Now be a good boy and help your mom with dinner.

Larinioides cornutus
Posted - 2010.07.10 01:57:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Fumitsugu
Originally by: Voith
Low Sec is going to suck until CCP adjusts it for 5+ years of mudflation.

Low security status needs a major penalty that can't be avoided with alts or second accounts. Gate guns need to be about quadrupled in damage wise. There needs to be more entrances to low-sec as well.


I read your response to Mynxee's thread on lowsec....I really think you should stick to Empire, bro.


I haven't been in Empire in 2.. almost 3 years. How can I stay there?

I realize that you have no actual ability to refute any point people are making, so you're trying to play some sort of Internet blowhard/Toughguy thing, but everyone sees through it kiddo. Now be a good boy and help your mom with dinner.

Derailing the topic here, but FYI, I have once suggested a solution to alt by forcing alts listed as alias. This is done on both on and off account alt. People bashed that suggestion because it's "too hard to implement", "unrealistic" or basically "too much consequences to my action."

I'm well aware that I'm alt posting. It is not something to be proud of, but because everyone does it; doing otherwise bring great amount of target cross hair to your head.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (16)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only