Iâm actually the smartest person youâll ever have the pleasure of talking to. If you, with your average intelligence, fail to write your sentence in a clearly understood manner, then thatâs your fault.
Youâre one of these bears that want risk-free nullsec space. Thereâs no denying that.
Iâm really not. I play a very marginal game of running around in lowsec on my main and doing some random trading experiments in the markets. So it looks like youâre quite wrong about both of us. I do find the null meta fascinating, though.
In other words you donât have any first-hand information about either side and canât contribute anything meaningful due to lack of experience.
Read that again and tell me that it doesnât say that youâre arguing for more safe space.
First, you question why sov holders and trespassers should be on equal footing, which translates to that from your viewpoint they currently are.
Then you go on about possible advantages sov holders could get to make it worthwhile and how less risk should be one of those advantages.
Twist your interpretation all around you want, but thatâs not what you wrote. What you wrote is that sov nullsec should be made even safer than it already is to give the sov holders an edge over trespassers that, by your own words, isnât currently there.
I do understand what you were actually trying to say, but itâs not what you wrote.
Oh, Iâve been there, done that, just no longer. I was using present tense, in response to your accusation also made in the present tense. You seem to have a problem with understanding discourse beyond the basic sentence level. I hope you get that worked out.
âmunches popcorn and laughs hystericlyâ thanks for making a shity day at work funny to take a look at after i get home. this is a similar train wreck as the new transformers film was lmfao
Someone who is risk averse enough two dock/hide/cloak as soon as they see +1 in local, is not likely to remain in null after local is removed, so I cant see it having the effect that hunters are hoping for.
That is the reason YOU want this change.
A lot of people who have argued for it for a long time want it because they think it will make it easier for them to catch the unwary.
Your reason does not mean other reasons cannot be discussed.
Oh and capital letters and full stops make you look rather petulant.
Yes. And IâM the one who posted the thread. To which you responded âdurdurdur you want Local removed so you can frag newbs but theyâll just leave nullâ to which I pointed why I posted the thread.
you go next door and either wait on the gate or do content there, or run content in obvious durable bait or unworthy drop targets under the camper as is your preference, either way afk no longer cuts it for the cloaker.
Even I can find things to do in the unusual circumstance of having only 1 sov system when its camped, I usually make more running relics in the surrounding area than actually ratting in a subcap anyway.
There isnât a problem with delayed combat, and to be honest i find each little stand off with each different camper has its own texture, and I find it amusing when I figure out what they want and interfere with it, since its not uncommon for the person cloaked up to be a site runner with an escalation or who wants to probe down and run your content. In which cases i can park something overtly scary on d-scan and then its they who are camped.
Theyâd have to redesign the pve and delete sentry drones and give me the sp back imo before they could delete local.
Just safe log somewhere after passing gates, maybe log in tomorrow to actually do the dirty deeds. Maybe never leave until actually destroyed since youâll always suprise someone.
I am defined as a whining anti cloaker by Linus Gorp, so where shall I begin:
My issue is solely with the AFK part, after the removal of watch lists and with the addition of skill injectors, making it a lot more difficult to work out who is camping you and their time of play, I want an AFK flag on them to detail if they have not interacted with their client for more than one hour which is removed with any interaction. It is a game balance item so that I donât waste my time baiting people who are not even playing, except if you call playing being logged in, which many of you do.
Not long ago PL decided that they wanted our pocket, they decided to afk cloaky camp as well as active cloaky camp, I have multiple kills on them when they did stuff, we also did active ADM fleets and in fact increased our ADMâs, however as we are Au TZ we had the end escalation potential which our enemy could only have if they alarm cloaked their EU TZ and stayed up very very late in the US TZ, this is important. We of course set up cyno jammers when we were most active but pulled them down before the TZ ended. Anyone outside of that main TZ was obviously going to have more trouble.
On one of my characters I set up 10 Vexors to rat in and when one got dropped I told them I had another ten vexors and did not give a monkies, it was noticeable that they did not drop my Vexor after that. As anyone who lives in nullsec knows for the ADM each ship counts the same be it a frigate or a BS, so when they went all out with active interceptor gangs backed up by more, we used stealth bombers to pop rats as well as kiting confessors and stuff like that.
A couple of the AFK cloaky campers were known to be in interdictors and they were laughably ineffective because you can see them on D-scan and they cannot do covert cynoâs obviously, and using a VNI at that point would get a nice kill mail on them as long as you pulled drones back then unleashed them.
So being a recent victor against a cloaky camping campaign by PL the best PvP alliance in the game I can laugh at any comment about whining ant cloaker thrown at me.
The cloak does not need to change, however either there has to be an AFK flag or some sort of de-cloaking wave, the issue with AFK cloaky camping is purely in terms of the AFK part, because how do you bait someone who is not even playing. It is unfair to paying customers that I waste my valuable plating time trying to bait out some lazy idiot who is not even at his keyboard. It is simply poor game play and that is my beef with AFK and emphasis on the AFK part of cloaky camping.
Local is a balance to cynoâs, good players get kills in null sec despite local, there are some excellent hunters in my alliance and they get kills, because they are damn good. If some one says that they need to AFK cloaky camp because of local, look at that loser with the contempt he deserves.