If you did that then CCP should investigate you for botting, which is effectively what you are doing. So now you support botting type game play. Who would have guessed… 
Simply an example of how easily it could be circumvented. I don’t bot, unlike the few thousand in null that do every single day. Hence the reason they are whining about AFK cloaky camping in the first place…
1 Like
So what you are saying is that it is OK to bot to defeat bots, do you like digging yourself into an even deeper hole. What you said is botting, pure and simple and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.
So the alternative is to simply let mining and ratting bots run rampant in null. Genius. Pure genius. So let’s just keep the status quo then.
Personally, I think it’s hilarious that AFK cloaky campers are taking a giant ■■■■ in your bot sandbox…
1 Like
I am not the one suggesting people should bot to get around a proposed game mechanic, you did, deal with it.
To suggest it is my bot sandbox is rather presumptuous of you, I can smell your butthurt. CCP bans them, eventually…, but I find it quite ridiculous that players like you suggest changes to the game that impact players playing the game as it is intended more than people who bot.
People like you with that sort of attitude are what is ruining this game. Let me repeat what you said:
Do you have no self-respect?
So, you don’t see a problem with null sec bots because CCP gets around to banning them, eventually. Hypocrisy much?
By that logic, CCP can also get around to eventually banning those who use the d-scan macro while cloaked in null. There. All better now…
1 Like
You are the one suggesting people should bot to beat a proposed game mechanic, and blustering about it makes no difference: And I never said that I did not see a problem with nullsec bots, that is you projecting on me mate, please desist as you look more and more butthurt about your own hypocrisy in posting like that.
Look here it is what you said:
That is plain wrong!
What exactly is that. But let me point out that I want to see people who do bot local intel networks get banned too.
Long story short, we all know what the main problem in null is, and it isn’t cloaks…
1 Like
Well do a post in suggestions and ideas about it, instead of proposing people bot to get around a suggested game mechanic, and then accuse people who pick you up on it of botting to hide your own hypocrisy.
Like I said, by all means, keep the status quo. It’s working so well…
If you are suggesting in that sentence that CCP should be doing a better job in banning bots I will agree with you. But it seems as if you are suggesting again that want botting to continue as is, which is wrong and presumptuous.
Still I have no idea what this means, please tell?
I am aware of people doing bot local intel networks which need to be banned, but this made no sense to me
Cloaky Camping is better than not logging in at all.
Also, wtf is this thread not closed, as it’s obviously a copycat.
ISD has cloaked up to make a point.
6 Likes
That’s my point dude, removal of local chat solves ALL these problems at once.
Part of playing a game is to have a problem and to solve it through game-play.
Even when a problem cannot be solved immediately can one always use patience.
If one can believe the study then we should see less complaints about afk cloaking in the future, because kids are showing an increased ability to “wait it out”.
That was nowhere near as good as your last analogy. By your logic no changes should ever be made to rectify long standing issues other than peoples gameplay choices. Removal of local would solve the “AFK Cloaker” problem but also not pander to the needs of the risk averse ISK grinding crowd. It’s perfect in that it works to prevent local scraping bots from collecting free intel while afk, but also makes sure these floppy dishrags don’t get their safe space to rat in. Complaints about AFK cloakers will stop, but nulsec will still require an organized team to PvE safely. This solution actually goes hand in hand with your first analogy, it’s a bit like sitting them in the throne.
That is how you create gameplay. Remove the stabilisers.
Alright. Here’s a different one.
Just as one can ignore AFK cloakers can one ignore those who complain about them, because both don’t pose a problem.
Better?
1 Like
Maybe they just don’t like Marshmallows anymore, but prefer something tasty and healthy.
Or they’ve learned to not take candy from strangers.
(Both of which would be okay I guess)
Tbf, I’m not a fan of this test, as it really is too biased and its results are used in to discuss things that can’t possibly be shown with this test.
There is no general truth in wether it’s better to take what you can get now or not take it and hope for more later. It really depends on the situation, even heavily so. While of course it is good if people have the will to not always want instant gratification, sometimes it is the best they can ask for.
Beyond a certain point, a generalized willingness to wait (on someone elses conditions) until you get your gratification (payment, service, w/e), is just slave mentality.
It’s expected of people by their superiors and despite that people still believe it would be a show of honor or inner strength. Can be, but only if you’re the one setting the conditions, if it is truly self-chosen patience.
Ever asked a bank to show some of that when you’re due with a payment? Ever ask your boss to wait it out, because you have something better to do than to appear on time? Ever seen any example of this so-called “patience” from a superior towards their subject? No.
This tests does not show patience, it shows how slave mentality is teached to children who try to fulfill their elders expectations. The pressure on them to perform is higher than ever, starts earlier than ever and I’m really not sure where this will lead.
Youth is the time where people need to make mistakes, without facing overly drastic consequences (as far as this is possible). They should be motivated and their character needs to form itself. Kids are not supposed to not take the candy, unless they don’t like the candy. If they should develop patience as inner strength, than not this passive waiting it shout sh’t, but because they’re actually working on something. Sitting in a room and waiting for some weird guy bringing more candy - nope.
If this test shows anything, than really only how much earlier kids are pressured into “adult” behaviour. It’s not good. It doesn’t produce inner strength, it just teaches them to show the behaviour that pretends there is some. You end up with spineless creatures who are addicted to all kind of medications to not implode under the pressure of expectations, because they’ve not learned to stand up for themselves and demand more fricking candy.
And btw, usually the guys who say things like “blabla y’all millenial instant gratification” are either just pretenders (because they often enough expect this too) or are already victims of protestant slave ethics and have nothing to show for with their so-called “patience” other than their pretend “inner-strength”, which in their case is just a nice way to say that they’re spineless victims who accepted to be at the bottom of the foodchain.
p.s. it’s also a bit cheap that he called it the marshmallow-test without even naming it’s origin thousands of years ago (where it wasn’t done with children).
also this:
But why then wait to get twice as many?
The test is about making a kid wait, and when it does, will it get two marshmallows.
Also if you reply to them. Especially in such a manner.