Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
961
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Mack Gyver wrote:NO NO NO AND NO. OP you clearly are an idiot and dont get the game at all. OP, ignore the rest of the bullcrap this guy wrote, and read the sentence. Local is necessary for Nullsec. It is how you teach new players to look out for themselves. Goonswarm has a thriving newplayer program, and one of the things we teach our new players (NewBees), is to be mindful of intel channels, and local.
You just displayed exactly why local needs to go. Thank you!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ancyker wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Peter Raptor wrote:If people don't like local, live in WH's, problem solved. +1 my point exactly! Removing local is NOT gonna stops bots by anymeans. They will do it using othermeans like gate fire effect or sound of gate fire and i am sure there are many other ways. The only reason why they use local is cos its easier and not cos its the only way! You'd have to be at the gate then... so you'd just, you know, see them on your overview? It is possible to make things impossible. If the data isn't there it's not there. You can't magically know. If the server chooses not to send it then neither you nor bots will know about it. Period. D-scan helps but oh wait, bombers. Get a bomber or a few with points, warp in cloaked, find target, uncloak, target, point. There you go. Got him. No counter other than having a scout inline between systems that don't have the upgrade. That is countered by logging out and waiting, log in after a while and grab a random target. It becomes a lot easier to catch bots as well as normal ratters. But as I said, that is not the intended function, just a side effect. As for local and wormholes and everything. That's great if you wanna be fairly locked down to 1 system or want to be scanning all the time. My idea is about adding another feature, another tool, for alliances to play with. It's not forcing anything on anyone. The change is additive. An alliance need only use it if they wish to and a counter was provided for those wishing that alliance harm. This suggestion adds more dynamic to eve and gets away from every system is the same. Null sec is null sec. You should have more control over systems you own -- within reason. I personally think it'd be cool to be able to use different tactics for different systems. This idea emphasizes scouting even more than it is now. It adds a new ship and role for people to aim for. And it keeps the sandbox fresh with another set of tools to bend the universe to your will. It's possible someone will come up with some crazy way to use this idea that had nothing to do with any of my original intentions, but that's what I love about eve.
Yes and no. It is very easy to put an alt at 300km facing gate, watch or listen for the jump effect and notify the bot to save up. Most bots are in dead end system or systems with very little transit so it wont work.
The things that drives me most to not liking this change is that its a half fast job at best and it does not fixes the problem and possibly breaks another part of eve. Have you taken into concideration how "OP" its gonna be not to be able to see you cos there is no local, not to be able to dscan you cos you got a cloak and not to be able to probe you cos you got a cloak. It makes cloak way too powerfull. Now add to this black ops and its really really OP, specially if you are really good with them like BE. Hi BE o7
Also the idea of upgrading the system to get local, i belive is probably one of the worst. have you forgotten what CCP did regarding system upgrades in the past? Well alliances spend billions in upgrades and then CCP decided to nerf it to death with NO refunds. People cried and did warn that a huge percentage of eve players will leave 0.0 space. Goons were among the advocate for the nerf and were deniying that people would leave 0.0 space. Now look at us, I would estimate that at least 30% of eve left 0.0 space and it all happened in days. People including goons now days are screaming that 0.0 is empty. Whats worst, is people stopped logging in also. As you can imagine i do not want to see this happen all over again.
|
Ancyker
Expletus Imperiosus Dominatus Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Yes and no. It is very easy to put an alt at 300km facing gate, watch or listen for the jump effect and notify the bot to save up. Most bots are in dead end system or systems with very little transit so it wont work.
The things that drives me most to not liking this change is that its a half fast job at best and it does not fixes the problem and possibly breaks another part of eve. Have you taken into concideration how "OP" its gonna be not to be able to see you cos there is no local, not to be able to dscan you cos you got a cloak and not to be able to probe you cos you got a cloak. It makes cloak way too powerfull. Now add to this black ops and its really really OP, specially if you are really good with them like BE. Hi BE o7
Also the idea of upgrading the system to get local, i belive is probably one of the worst. have you forgotten what CCP did regarding system upgrades in the past? Well alliances spend billions in upgrades and then CCP decided to nerf it to death with NO refunds. People cried and did warn that a huge percentage of eve players will leave 0.0 space. Goons were among the advocate for the nerf and were deniying that people would leave 0.0 space. Now look at us, I would estimate that at least 30% of eve left 0.0 space and it all happened in days. People including goons now days are screaming that 0.0 is empty. Whats worst, is people stopped logging in also. As you can imagine i do not want to see this happen all over again.
Also I like local. I like to smack talk in local to both, allies and enemies. I do not want this feature to be removed cos then how am i gonna talk to alies then? You upgrade the system to remove local, not to add it. The default is nothing changes, it adds the option to remove local if you choose to, not the other way around. The counter was added so it could be made to not be OP for the defender.
If whatever you are doing requires local, get someone in a blops destroyer to target the gate and give you local. You cover him and there you go. The counter to the counter is just blow up the ship. The counter to that is bring more ships.
Yes you can use a scout, but this requires 2 accounts for something 1 used to be able to do. More than likely bots will just move to less profitable systems that would not be upgraded. I never said it would stop bots and this was not even on the intentions of it, just a possible side effect. The intention of it is to give alliances another tool to use how they see fit.
The idea is alliances choose to remove local from a system, not choose to add local to systems. The goal behind it is they only remove local from important systems. The more I think about it the more I think it should be like a cyno jammer, requiring an upgrade and a POS module. This lets it be destructible without dealing with reinforcement timers. Destroy the module and regain real time local for everyone. |
Fish Hunter
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:43:00 -
[34] - Quote
I'm not sure how this change would benefit pve players at all in nullsec. Seems more like a recon/bomber/t3 gank improvement. |
Ancyker
Expletus Imperiosus Dominatus Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:46:00 -
[35] - Quote
Fish Hunter wrote:I'm not sure how this change would benefit pve players at all in nullsec. Seems more like a recon/bomber/t3 gank improvement. Change was not proposed to benefit anyone directly. It helps both sides.
If you enable it in your PVE systems you most definitely will get more people killed. At the same time enabling it in your PVE systems discourages AFK cloakers as they give away they are in system if they stay -- they benefit a lot more staying out of system until they are ready to gank. You could gank all day by just cloaking next door instead.
You can enable it in your staging system to deny your enemy a list of who is there to defend. If your enemy doesn't know your numbers that's gonna suck for them. If you are in a system that is wider than the dscan range you can keep a reinforcement fleet out of that range and your enemy will not know it's there unless they are spying or hacking the gate.
There's a lot of ways to use it, like anything in eve, I'm not intending it for any one thing. I just want the tool to be there and let the players/alliances figure out what they want to do with it. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Here's how you do it:
1. open eve source code 2. find section of code regarding local in WHs 3. select it, hit crtl+c 4. find section of code regarding local in nullsec 5. select it, hit ctrl+v 6. ??? 7. celebrate making nullsec PVP interesting.
Local turns 95% of pvp into blobbing, station games and POSing up.
okay, while we're at it we might as well remove
gates jump drives static belts
and require probing to do anything meaningful in nullsec
because if you want wormhole style local, why not move to a wormhole? eh |
Ancyker
Expletus Imperiosus Dominatus Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Here's how you do it:
1. open eve source code 2. find section of code regarding local in WHs 3. select it, hit crtl+c 4. find section of code regarding local in nullsec 5. select it, hit ctrl+v 6. ??? 7. celebrate making nullsec PVP interesting.
Local turns 95% of pvp into blobbing, station games and POSing up. okay, while we're at it we might as well remove gates jump drives static belts and require probing to do anything meaningful in nullsec because if you want wormhole style local, why not move to a wormhole? I agree sorta. I'm actually for removing static belts from every part of EVE. But that's another thread altogether.
I don't think removing local from null entirely is a good idea, which is why I didn't suggest that. It's a stupid idea and makes no sense. I think that doing this would just make most people leave null and/or make blobbing worse (travel in blobs to stay safe?). |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 19:59:00 -
[38] - Quote
Ancyker wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Yes and no. It is very easy to put an alt at 300km facing gate, watch or listen for the jump effect and notify the bot to save up. Most bots are in dead end system or systems with very little transit so it wont work.
The things that drives me most to not liking this change is that its a half fast job at best and it does not fixes the problem and possibly breaks another part of eve. Have you taken into concideration how "OP" its gonna be not to be able to see you cos there is no local, not to be able to dscan you cos you got a cloak and not to be able to probe you cos you got a cloak. It makes cloak way too powerfull. Now add to this black ops and its really really OP, specially if you are really good with them like BE. Hi BE o7
Also the idea of upgrading the system to get local, i belive is probably one of the worst. have you forgotten what CCP did regarding system upgrades in the past? Well alliances spend billions in upgrades and then CCP decided to nerf it to death with NO refunds. People cried and did warn that a huge percentage of eve players will leave 0.0 space. Goons were among the advocate for the nerf and were deniying that people would leave 0.0 space. Now look at us, I would estimate that at least 30% of eve left 0.0 space and it all happened in days. People including goons now days are screaming that 0.0 is empty. Whats worst, is people stopped logging in also. As you can imagine i do not want to see this happen all over again.
Also I like local. I like to smack talk in local to both, allies and enemies. I do not want this feature to be removed cos then how am i gonna talk to alies then? You upgrade the system to remove local, not to add it. The default is nothing changes, it adds the option to remove local if you choose to, not the other way around. The counter was added so it could be made to not be OP for the defender. If whatever you are doing requires local, get someone in a blops destroyer to target the gate and give you local. You cover him and there you go. The counter to the counter is just blow up the ship. The counter to that is bring more ships. Yes you can use a scout, but this requires 2 accounts for something 1 used to be able to do. More than likely bots will just move to less profitable systems that would not be upgraded. I never said it would stop bots and this was not even on the intentions of it, just a possible side effect. The intention of it is to give alliances another tool to use how they see fit. The idea is alliances choose to remove local from a system, not choose to add local to systems. The goal behind it is they only remove local from important systems. The more I think about it the more I think it should be like a cyno jammer, requiring an upgrade and a POS module. This lets it be destructible without dealing with reinforcement timers. Destroy the module and regain real time local for everyone.
if you want to remove local, put it behind another channel/minimize it and disable flashing. Problem solved. Besides people bot with friendlies in local also. A few months ago someone did it in our alliance. He got caught, blown up and his pod was still warping from belt to belt. He got reported, the end! Removing local does nothing for bots. Besides goons have said it before - if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. I want to talk to both friendlies and enemies in local and this is a dumb (no offence ) way to fix stuff. You want to remove reinforce timers on POS stations etc? emmm. Sorry mate, but this is very bad for the game. |
Ancyker
Expletus Imperiosus Dominatus Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:if you want to remove local, put it behind another channel/minimize it and disable flashing. Problem solved. Besides people bot with friendlies in local also. A few months ago someone did it in our alliance. He got caught, blown up and his pod was still warping from belt to belt. He got reported, the end! Removing local does nothing for bots. Besides goons have said it before - if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. I want to talk to both friendlies and enemies in local and this is a dumb (no offence ) way to fix stuff.
You know removing local just means not automatically giving you the full local user list. You still get the local window and can talk in it. You just don't know who is there unless it's your alliance that holds it or you are hacking the gate (or they talk). |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:02:00 -
[40] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani.
we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi
we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do eh |
|
Ancyker
Expletus Imperiosus Dominatus Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do I thought it was more policy/a guideline than a rule. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ancyker wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you want to remove local, put it behind another channel/minimize it and disable flashing. Problem solved. Besides people bot with friendlies in local also. A few months ago someone did it in our alliance. He got caught, blown up and his pod was still warping from belt to belt. He got reported, the end! Removing local does nothing for bots. Besides goons have said it before - if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. I want to talk to both friendlies and enemies in local and this is a dumb (no offence ) way to fix stuff.
You know removing local just means not automatically giving you the full local user list. You still get the local window and can talk in it. You just don't know who is there unless it's your alliance that holds it or you are hacking the gate (or they talk).
so i am gonna be talking to myself or perhaps even talking to a ship that was left on a pos? How fun is that? why dont you move to a wh? You got plenty of that boring nonsence there. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:06:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ancyker wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do I thought it was more policy/a guideline than a rule.
the policy is "don't petition blues"
as we have no way of knowing who made a petition, anybody who understands things and doesn't wear a tinfoil hat would realize why that rule exists eh |
Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
183
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ancyker wrote:
My suggestion is to add an ihub upgrade that will disable local for all except the alliance holder.
terribletroll.gif |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do
my point is, if you are never gonna enforce no botting within your organization, why would you support a change thats not gonna fix the issue specially when your own alliance refuses to take matters in their own hand! Its ridiculous. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:10:00 -
[46] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do my point is, if you are never gonna enforce no botting within your organization, why would you support a change thats not gonna fix the issue specially when your own alliance refuses to take matters in their own hand! Its ridiculous.
because changing game mechanics in some hamfisted attempt to fix botting is stupid
banning bots fixes botting eh |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:12:00 -
[47] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:if you spot a friendly boting, dont report them, dont shoot them, we are not here to do ccp work for them, from mouth of th horse himself the Mittani. we have no way of knowing who reported a botter, fyi we have that rule because we just don't want to deal with ratting drama, because we have better things to do my point is, if you are never gonna enforce no botting within your organization, why would you support a change thats not gonna fix the issue specially when your own alliance refuses to take matters in their own hand! Its ridiculous. because changing game mechanics in some hamfisted attempt to fix botting is stupid banning bots fixes botting
while I am for bans, 2 times = permaban so now its ok to ban other people but not "your" people. double standards anyone??
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:while I am for bans, 2 times = permaban so now its ok to ban other people but not "your" people. double standards anyone??
we discourage botting and anybody who talks about botting, encourages botting or anything of the sort gets banned from our services
allowing people to report/shoot bots opens a can of worms of stupid ratting drama that we simply don't want to put up in a 4000 man alliance surrounded by a significantly larger coalition eh |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:21:00 -
[49] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:while I am for bans, 2 times = permaban so now its ok to ban other people but not "your" people. double standards anyone??
we discourage botting and anybody who talks about botting, encourages botting or anything of the sort gets banned from our services allowing people to report/shoot bots opens a can of worms of stupid ratting drama that we simply don't want to put up in a 4000 man alliance surrounded by a significantly larger coalition
I hate to say this cos i detest bots but did you ever stopped and thinked that the same thing that you just sai also applies to other alliances? How can you even think that this is not ok with the rest but its ok with your alliance? So how can you still call for baning and not eenforce it in your own alliance? STOP the hypocracy (again, no offence) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:26:00 -
[50] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:So how can you still call for baning and not eenforce it in your own alliance? STOP the hypocracy (again, no offence)
because the task of enforcing the EULA comes with a paycheck, not a monthly subscription, and the people who find bots and mete out the appropriate punishments are actually equipped to do so eh |
|
Caldari Citizen 786478786
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:27:00 -
[51] - Quote
Halfway through the original post my first thought was "what a terrible ******* idea?". Soon after that my second thought was, "Oh, the OP is from TEST. Why am I not surprised?". |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:28:00 -
[52] - Quote
Caldari Citizen 786478786 wrote:Halfway through the original post my first thought was "what a terrible ******* idea?". Soon after that my second thought was, "Oh, the OP is from TEST. Why am I not surprised?".
you're from "School of Applied Knowledge" lol eh |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:29:00 -
[53] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:So how can you still call for baning and not eenforce it in your own alliance? STOP the hypocracy (again, no offence) because the task of enforcing the EULA comes with a paycheck, not a monthly subscription, and the people who find bots and mete out the appropriate punishments are actually equipped to do so
again, the same thing can be said for your alliance! We are going in circles. You cant enforce something that "your" alliance is happy to do so. You are exaclty like them the only difference is you want them banned and not yours! Its double standards which ever way you look at it. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:31:00 -
[54] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:again, the same thing can be said for your alliance! We are going in circles. You cant enforce something that "your" alliance is happy to do so. You are exaclty like them the only difference is you want them banned and not yours!
wow it's almost like you don't get the point
we can't stop anybody from reporting bots, but if they choose to beat their chests about it they're gone
hint: we don't care if idiots get banned for botting, goons or otherwise eh |
Caldari Citizen 786478786
134
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:39:00 -
[55] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:you're from "School of Applied Knowledge" lol
Clever retort, chap, but it doesn't change the fact that the OP's idea is ******* terrible. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:again, the same thing can be said for your alliance! We are going in circles. You cant enforce something that "your" alliance is happy to do so. You are exaclty like them the only difference is you want them banned and not yours!
wow it's almost like you don't get the point we can't stop anybody from reporting bots, but if they choose to beat their chests about it they're gone hint: we don't care if idiots get banned for botting, goons or otherwise
excuse me but you just said your alliance did care a few posts ago cos otherwise the whole drama thing with 4000 people and your enemies next door. As i said, you cant enforce something when you dont enforce it yourselves lik we did and blew up the guy boting in our own alliance followed by a kick and report. I guess you guys are not so keen about removing bots just other peoples bots! ALL BOTS DEAD. NO EXCPTIONS
|
Creed Richards
Xoth Inc Omega Vector
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
I must admit the OP's suggestion is a balanced take on the question and deserves further scruntiny. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
382
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:49:00 -
[58] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:again, the same thing can be said for your alliance! We are going in circles. You cant enforce something that "your" alliance is happy to do so. You are exaclty like them the only difference is you want them banned and not yours!
wow it's almost like you don't get the point we can't stop anybody from reporting bots, but if they choose to beat their chests about it they're gone hint: we don't care if idiots get banned for botting, goons or otherwise excuse me but you just said your alliance did care a few posts ago cos otherwise the whole drama thing with 4000 people and your enemies next door. As i said, you cant enforce something when you dont enforce it yourselves like we did and blew up the guy boting in our own alliance followed by a kick and report. I guess you guys are not so keen about removing bots just other peoples bots! ALL BOTS DEAD. NO EXCEPTIONS
no, you selectively drew whatever conclusion best suits your argument
when I said "allowing people to report/shoot bots opens a can of worms of stupid ratting drama that we simply don't want to put up in a 4000 man alliance surrounded by a significantly larger coalition" I meant that we don't want to deal with situations where it's one person's word versus another's
believe it or not, not everybody that rats in 0.0 is botting eh |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 20:55:00 -
[59] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:again, the same thing can be said for your alliance! We are going in circles. You cant enforce something that "your" alliance is happy to do so. You are exaclty like them the only difference is you want them banned and not yours!
wow it's almost like you don't get the point we can't stop anybody from reporting bots, but if they choose to beat their chests about it they're gone hint: we don't care if idiots get banned for botting, goons or otherwise excuse me but you just said your alliance did care a few posts ago cos otherwise the whole drama thing with 4000 people and your enemies next door. As i said, you cant enforce something when you dont enforce it yourselves like we did and blew up the guy boting in our own alliance followed by a kick and report. I guess you guys are not so keen about removing bots just other peoples bots! ALL BOTS DEAD. NO EXCEPTIONS no, you selectively drew whatever conclusion best suits your argument when I said "allowing people to report/shoot bots opens a can of worms of stupid ratting drama that we simply don't want to put up in a 4000 man alliance surrounded by a significantly larger coalition" I meant that we don't want to deal with situations where it's one person's word versus another's believe it or not, not everybody that rats in 0.0 is botting
ofcource not. i was not selective at all. I read exactly what it says. Its not my fault you did not word it right. But once again, somebody in another alliance does not want to deal with the same situation as you just mentioned, so again how can you still argue for ban for boting and not enforce it within your alliance? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
382
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:ofcource not. i was not selective at all. I read exactly what it says. Its not my fault you did not word it right. But once again, somebody in another alliance does not wants to "deal with situations where it's one person's word versus another's" as you just mentioned, so again how can you still argue for ban for boting and not enforce it within your alliance?
we don't pay to enforce CCP's rules
simple as that eh |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |