Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jonah Gravenstein
292
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 16:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
nat longshot wrote:Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Pok Nibin wrote:AT the risk of repeating myself:
Let's see. The griefers/gankers (whatever) win. All miners turn in their barges for PvP-fitted vessels. Lacking minerals all manufacturers invest in PvP ships as well. Griefer/Ganker (Whatever) Heaven ensues. Ships are lost, replaced, lost, replaced until one day....
...you go to the shop and the cupboard is bare. There are no more ships.
Yeah, it seems the "EVE is for PVP" crowd's logic is supreme. It was there in front of us all along! The goal in EVE is Pods at Five Meters. We bump each other for a few hours and log out satiated and satisfied.
How stupid could we be for missing such an obvious truth? Thanks griefers, gankers, (whatever). Our eyes are now opened.
And to think I've spent all this time training. (I've got Pods to V.) Lots of minerals come from mission runners so meh not anymoe they dont Drones dont drop anything anymore so your info is WRONG!!
Drones now have bounties, mission rats have bounties and non meta 0 mods, minerals are still obtainable from the loot drops, you just have to be prepared to reprocess meta 1+ modules to get at them.
l2read patch notes
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Kievan Arakyd
MarSec Industries STR8NGE BREW
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 18:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:the sandbox should also mean if a guy suicide ganks your crap, you corp should be able to defend your corp member.
but no, a corp member cannot shoot the ganker or he will be concorded.
Sandbox my gawd damn ass.
which is why concord needs to be removed entirely. you whining miners begged for more concord so now itll kill you faster too. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 18:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Fredfredbug4 wrote:Spurty wrote:... Build a sand box for your town.
Charge people to play in it.
When they turn up to play, Kick sand in people face in the sand box.
It's really not a good analogy (sand box)
HTH But the town wouldn't be kicking sand in the face of people. The people would be kicking sand in each others face's. Why should the town be involved in a personal dispute between two people? Congratulations. You perfectly explained CCP's stance on the sandbox. If this were true, then Concord, GCC and all of the various rules / repurcussions associated with aggression would not be in-place.
As things currently stand, CCP is heavily involved in these disputes despite the claim of "sandbox" and 'players make the content.'
Furthermore, CCP exercises a very heavy hand when it comes to the economics of the game, dramatically tweaking resource availability, taxation rates and various PvE aspects that impact the "sandbox" far more than any player v. player activities.
284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:13:00 -
[34] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Sandbox means decisions have consequence.
Only if those are the rules.
Classically "sandbox" refers to non-linearity and a lack of set objectives. Essentially rules without externally defined purpose.
The rules mean decisions have consequences, a sandbox could give you a god-tool to do anything you want.
I think people often misunderstand that.
|
Romar Agent
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:...wouldn't that also mean suicide gankers should be free to suicide gank? Yes, by all means.
And people should be free to complain about it as well.
It's a sandbox. |
Ila Gant
Hedion University Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:39:00 -
[36] - Quote
Luis Graca wrote:trust me you can't stop suicide ganking CCP certainly could. They shouldn't, but they could.
Regarding the OP: When I played in sandboxes as a kid, the other kids were generally not permitted to hit each other over the head with their shovels. Parents or teachers (or "lunch mothers") kept an eye on things to make sure nothing got too out of hand. Children playing in sandboxes need oversight, after all. |
Flakey Foont
Javalinas
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:44:00 -
[37] - Quote
A new and exciting topic! |
Herold Oldtimer
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 21:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:...wouldn't that also mean suicide gankers should be free to suicide gank?
Try to look at it this way. It is easy to mine in high-sec, but hard to gank.
In null-sec it is easy to gank, and hard to mine. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 21:52:00 -
[39] - Quote
Herold Oldtimer wrote:Fredfredbug4 wrote:...wouldn't that also mean suicide gankers should be free to suicide gank? Try to look at it this way. It is easy to mine in high-sec, but hard to gank. In null-sec it is easy to gank, and hard to mine.
Its not hard to mine in null, just getting your ship there. Its not ganking in low or null sec either, imo.
Still ganker in hi-sec should be allowed to be ganked by gankee without fear of retaliation, i mean isnt that what ganking is all about?
By retaliation, i mean by the ganker, obviously concord gives you 30 days. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |