Is CCP’s definition of exploit which is the only one that matters. I’m sure you’re happy (and me as well) that ganking, scamming or other forms of pvp aren’t seen as griefing by CCP, even though lots of the player base would love it to be classified as that, to thus be against the rules.
But that is my point: It HAS a counter but (like so many things in EVE) it’s not exactly an easy one and it’s going to fail often. You’re just mad that people get away from you by engaging in a form of pvp of their own (avoidance through effort). You really do sound like a carebear right now.
You’re moving the goal posts. “Griefing” and “exploiting” are two different things.
It actually doesn’t have a counter if it’s executed properly. This is in fact a mathematical truth that can be proven with numbers. The only counter-play effectively becomes the target messing something up, like mistiming a button press, or just dumb luck, like you choosing a specific section of the gate perimeter to camp, and the target appearing very close to you. But neither playing badly nor luck are counter-play mechanisms to any game mechanic.
Really? You’re getting all that from my use of a single word? I think you’ve drank too much of the forum cool-aid.
Not at all, you just don’t have a counter so you try this. Both are concepts where players might/will have a different opinion on than CCP. You crying “exploit” is no different from one of your war target customers calling you a “griefer” and crying that it should be changed. It’s all crying and it’s all terrible.
Don’t lie, it does. Just not easy in the ship setup you like to use and in the situations you tend to be in. That’s like saying that using a faction or double scram is an exploit because it can’t be countered by WCS.
You don’t think that if someone puts in the effort to practice the timing and actively pay attention while traveling in high sec (or anywhere else) he should be rewarded for such?
EVE is an MMO: some situations are more difficult when solo. Adapt or accept.
Yes, because it’s obvious for what you’re doing. Day in day out camping haulers and carebears and some of them have the audacity to not be an easy/automatic target through effort and preparation, like it should be in EVE.
You’re being really terrible right now, HTFU and all that. Not going do continue the back and forth, all has been said.
Perhaps. Large smartie range is 6km which is already somewhat close to auto decloak distance. Smaller ones make it like trying to catch a bird by sprinkling salt on its tail so it’s not that useful in a “rushing in to try and decloak” kind of way. It’s certainly a viable point of discussion though.
“Griefing” and “exploit” are both essentially objective labels; they just deal with different concepts. The act of non-consensual PvP is, by all industry standards and definitions, an act of grief; we (or rather the developers) simply choose to allow it as part of normal gameplay. Likewise, the cloak/MWD trick fits the standards and definitions of an exploit, but we (or rather once again the developers) simply choose to allow it as part of normal gameplay.
I use the most efficient possible ship/setup combinations for this task, according to the mathematical models I’ve built, and extensive practice and testing. I’ve killed hundreds of cloak/MWD users over the past few months alone, however, none of those kills were a result of me countering the users, but rather an effect of me increasing my odds as much as possible in cases where the users screw up.
How many have you killed to be able to reliably draw your conclusion?
That’s nothing like it. WCS vs. warp strength is a linear game mechanic that was specifically programmed to function as such. The intent was to enforce a differential on the tackling equation that would shift the delta in order to make tacklers pay for the ability to tackle targets by making them lose additional slots, which would make them suffer in efficiency elsewhere. The intent was never to implement an absolute counter to tackling, which is what the cloak/MWD trick is.
I will make an example here: for a really long time, it was possible to save your ship in a fight by dumping it into the maintenance bay of a ship like the Orca. This was always an exploit that had no effective counter-play. It took some time, but essentially it was patched out, despite players who used the exploit telling others to “HTFU” and “adapt” to it.
Not if the reward is absolute invulnerability that has no viable counter-play aside from the target screwing up or you getting lucky, no.
Gotta say I expected more from you than a couple of low-key insult memes, getting the last word in, and then running away from a civil debate, but stranger things have happened here before.
I mean, I too (ab)use the MWD cloak trick as one of the methods to increase my survivability, but I believe the game would improve if this interaction was changed.
Are you a space aeronautical engineer and physicist?Do you hold a Ph.D in those fields and have the credentials to be an expert in the field to post a le sigh?
Aiko is a RL princess. And as such, she can royally decree herself to be the utmost authority on any subject she deems fit. Her word is divine truth and law.
I am not a server admin or any IT specialist however, I would want to go out on a limb and say the servers would melt if bumping did damage to ships. It really goes against CCP’s goals of having big fleet battles w/o the time dilatation. They have been certainty trying… I think they made some slight progress.
Are you trying to claim that it is impossible for an object in motion to impact another object, without a catastrophic explosion? I suggest you take a basic course in physics.
