Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kahz Niverrah
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming Moar Tears
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 17:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
The new dev blog talked about a change to logoff mechanics, but I'm curious how this will work if a player logs off before being aggressed. Currently on Tranquility, if a player jumps through a gate into a waiting camp and logs off while holding cloak, the ships waiting on the other side only have 30 seconds to destroy them before they disappear. Would the change to the mechanics keep them there until they are deaggressed or die, or would they have to be aggressed prior to logging off for the new rules to come into play? This is a constant problem with heavily tanked ships and freighters. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Noriko Mai
203
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 17:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
New Dev Blog
CCP Tallest wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression.
|
Kahz Niverrah
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming Moar Tears
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 18:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks. Missed the other thread. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Noriko Mai
203
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 18:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
gimme laik, gimme laik, gimme laik, gimme laik |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 18:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
i'd like to see only super caps have this... freighters shouldn't be able to get an aggression timer =p |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
53
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 18:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:i'd like to see only super caps have this... freighters shouldn't be able to get an aggression timer =p
Hah. Not only do freighetrs get it. But every single ship in EVE. Brilliant. |
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
225
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. The other 5 pages you have already espoused on this are that way Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
180
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:New Dev BlogCCP Tallest wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Sounds good, but will this also affect people who log off without aggression, and would normally dissapear within 1 minute? If you have not registered aggression at the point of logoff, you will disappear as normal. This cannot be extended by post-logoff aggression.
It also applies to every ship in EVE. [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/bebnf8.jpg[/img] |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
180
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them.
Quote:Martinez T-Cells Moar Tears Likes received: 1
Martinez wrote: Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them.
. [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/bebnf8.jpg[/img] |
|
Kengutsi Akira
30
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:Herping yourDerp wrote:i'd like to see only super caps have this... freighters shouldn't be able to get an aggression timer =p Hah. Not only do freighetrs get it. But every single ship in EVE. Brilliant.
sweet, no more logoffski |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
74
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Reilly Duvolle wrote:Herping yourDerp wrote:i'd like to see only super caps have this... freighters shouldn't be able to get an aggression timer =p Hah. Not only do freighetrs get it. But every single ship in EVE. Brilliant. sweet, no more logoffski
only if you drop cloak, otherwise you can still logoffski, just not while agressed
The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
39
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 03:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
The system checks your aggression within every 15 minutes, if you are shot again in that 15 minutes you're not logging off. Basically your clone just went into siezure. |
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 18:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
Headerman wrote:[quote=Martinez]That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them.
Must have been your one of your alts we killed in a jf last month. LOL I dont care about likes, I want eve to be a better game. A better game would include no " oh hell i am stupid and didnt properly scout before I jumped though this gate, I will log off and be safe now" button. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 18:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. Yet more tears, nice.
CCP Zulu.....Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 18:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. Yet more tears, nice.
K, explain why it should be allowed in game. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 18:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Martinez wrote:Mag's wrote:Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. Yet more tears, nice. K, explain why it should be allowed in game. Mainly because it enrages self entitled people like yourself.
CCP Zulu.....Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 19:10:00 -
[18] - Quote
Martinez wrote: .... I want eve to be a better game. A better game would include no " oh hell i am stupid and didnt properly scout before I jumped though this gate, I will log off and be safe now" button.
No you don't, you want EVE to be a game where you can kill, harass, rampage at will on any unwilling target with impunity. You see their ability to sidestep your harassment as an affront to your L33T internet spaceship skills and therefore must complain until said affront is removed from the game, leaving unwilling targets with one less option to by pass your aggression. Anyone who does not play the game in the exact manner and method as you want them to play are probably stooopib, noob, carebear in your book, right?
But what's stupid is trying to alienate a large chunk of CCP's paying user base, I'm sure if they were all to leave the gaem then EVE would be perfect... actually it would be perfect as they would be forced to shut down and thus no more complaining about balancing or anything. |
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 19:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Martinez wrote:Mag's wrote:Martinez wrote:That is stupid. Allowing people to avoid combat like that is gay. Pilots not logging off in a safe area should be at risk. Oh yeah Risk a word carebears dont like, and since carebears dont like it CCP panders to them. Yet more tears, nice. K, explain why it should be allowed in game. Mainly because it enrages self entitled people like yourself.
So screw the game, you are a forum warrior. Am I right?
See that is the difference. I want eve to be a better game. You think making stupid comments about me gets you forum cred or something. I personally dont care about you or your carebear friends. I want eve to be a better game for all. Logging off to avoid combat is lame and should be removed from the game completely.
Your attacks on me have no substance. Try commenting on the topic. If not you are a just a flamer. Go away troll. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 19:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Martinez wrote:Mag's wrote:Martinez wrote:[quote=Mag's]
K, explain why it should be allowed in game. Mainly because it enrages self entitled people like yourself. So screw the game, you are a forum warrior. Am I right? See that is the difference. I want eve to be a better game. You think making stupid comments about me gets you forum cred or something. I personally dont care about you or your carebear friends. I want eve to be a better game for all. Logging off to avoid combat is lame and should be removed from the game completely. Your attacks on me have no substance. Try commenting on the topic. If not you are a just a flamer. Go away troll. You're not interested in making the game better, only making your game better. There's a big difference, but with your self entitled attitude you wouldn't see it.
CCP Zulu.....Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 19:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:Martinez wrote: .... I want eve to be a better game. A better game would include no " oh hell i am stupid and didnt properly scout before I jumped though this gate, I will log off and be safe now" button. No you don't, you want EVE to be a game where you can kill, harass, rampage at will on any unwilling target with impunity. You see their ability to sidestep your harassment as an affront to your L33T internet spaceship skills and therefore must complain until said affront is removed from the game, leaving unwilling targets with one less option to by pass your aggression. Anyone who does not play the game in the exact manner and method as you want them to play are probably stooopib, noob, carebear in your book, right? But what's stupid is trying to alienate a large chunk of CCP's paying user base, I'm sure if they were all to leave the gaem then EVE would be perfect... actually it would be perfect as they would be forced to shut down and thus no more complaining about balancing or anything.
LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing. Look no one wants to die, but if you dont take steps IN GAME to prevent death then you should die. The fact you carebears think that quitting the game to save your ship should be a good tactic and allowed is comical.
Honestly my alliance kills 1000 to 2000 ships a month. We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships. So to imply that changing this would alienate a large chuck off CCP's paying user base is asinine. EVE unlike WoW and Hello Kitty Online has mostly a player base that does understand how eve has real risk vs reward. Unfortuntatly the carebears take the forums alot and cry. As stated earlier, this change would only effect me personally maybe once or twice a month. What it does though is reinforce the EVE mindset that there is real loss in eve. You dont just get to resurrect at the nearest graveyard and start over with all the same stuff. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 20:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Martinez wrote:LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing.
We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships. So to imply that changing this would alienate a large chuck off CCP's paying user base is asinine. Yeah, its a good thing. Your whiney tears prove why it should stick around. You want the chance to 100% kill everything, yet you said yourself 1000+ ships and 15 pull this trick a month....thats barely a 10th of a percent . So you have a 99% success rate of killing things. That one odd time someone manages to get away just enrages you like the Hulk and he needs a good lay. ! It shows how humilitating it is to you to loose something. |
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 20:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Martinez wrote:LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing.
Martinez wrote:Honestly my alliance kills 1000 to 2000 ships a month. We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships.
First you say EVERYONE uses this and you are deprived of your kills. Then you say based no your actual data about .008% of the pilots you've encountered killed uses the tactic. Why exactly are you crying over 15 missed kills
My comment regarding the 'carebear' base was more in general. You show absolute scorn towards anyone who doesn't play like you and believe if the game was changed to make YOUR play style the primary play style then the game would be "better". However, in chasing that endeavor you will alienate and drive out the paying players. Why do you hate people who don't play the game the way you want. Do you really think you are that self-entitled?
Martinez wrote: Unfortuntatly the carebears take the forums alot and cry. This is funny since we've derailed this thread to address your crying and sense of harassment entitlement.
P.S. Internet space ships is a game and not real, why do you let online interactions anger you in real life? |
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 20:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Martinez wrote:LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing.
We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships. So to imply that changing this would alienate a large chuck off CCP's paying user base is asinine. Yeah, its a good thing. Your whiney tears prove why it should stick around. You want the chance to 100% kill everything, yet you said yourself 1000+ ships and 15 pull this trick a month....thats barely a 10th of a percent . So you have a 99% success rate of killing things. That one odd time someone manages to get away just enrages you like the Hulk and he needs a good lay. ! It shows how humilitating it is to you to loose something.
As I said, this change does effect me much so the whiney tears arent mine. Its the point. It shouldnt be allowed. Give me a good reason for it to be allowed and I may change my tune. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
241
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 21:05:00 -
[25] - Quote
Buruk Utama wrote:Martinez wrote:LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing. Martinez wrote:Honestly my alliance kills 1000 to 2000 ships a month. We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships. First you say EVERYONE uses this and you are deprived of your kills. Then you say based no your actual data about .008% of the pilots you've encountered killed uses the tactic. Why exactly are you crying over 15 missed kills And hey guess what. He was TOLD repeatedly that it is such a SMALL issue in ANOTHER post..... It has also been REPEATEDLY clarified via CCP rulings on logoffski.....
He only has his mic on, not the headset. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 21:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Buruk Utama wrote:Martinez wrote:LOL, so you think everyone using the "log off" mechanic is a good thing. Martinez wrote:Honestly my alliance kills 1000 to 2000 ships a month. We have roughly just guessing 15 ships a month log off to save their ships. First you say EVERYONE uses this and you are deprived of your kills. Then you say based no your actual data about .008% of the pilots you've encountered killed uses the tactic. Why exactly are you crying over 15 missed kills And hey guess what. He was TOLD repeatedly that it is such a SMALL issue in ANOTHER post..... It has also been REPEATEDLY clarified via CCP rulings on logoffski..... He only has his mic on, not the headset.
Its not a small issue. Its a huge issue. If people are allowed to have these types of mechanics people like you will continue to complain about eve combat needing to be consensual. Consensual combat in EVE would be the end of EVE. This is a mechanic flaws when fixed would make EVE a better game.
Again, tell me why the change shouldnt happen. Use reasons other than attacks on me. It doesnt matter what percentage of my kills are missed from this. Its the point that logging off shouldnt be a viable tactic to save your ship. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
244
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 22:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
Martinez wrote: Again, tell me why the change shouldnt happen. Use reasons other than attacks on me. It doesnt matter what percentage of my kills are missed from this. Its the point that logging off shouldnt be a viable tactic to save your ship.
Look, I spend a lot of time here, and I get flamed heaps for doing it, putting forward ideas for debate, opening my own mind to possibilities and sometimes, just sometimes, it proves/disproves a consensus.
I hate "status quo" and I hate "that's the way it's always been done" or "them's the rules" as an argument. It's such a shallow minded and fixed mentality that I dismiss people that do it as mindless morons.
I've written some things which I thought at the time were mind-shattering revelations only to find them blatantly and repeatedly flamed/bashed/trolled etc. etc....
Because it was:- 1) A dumb idea and my own understanding didn't see that 2) It's a great idea but some players have such a small mindset they can't see the value 3) It's a great idea but goes against an individuals "sandbox" ideal 4) It's a mediocre idea and doesn't warrant a mention or discussion.
In your case, and I feel for the trolling you're copping, it's seen as a non-issue. Logoffski in space to escape a fight was in my view very "cowardly" - if that is even a term to use in Eve. You came to fight and bugged out when you started losing. That's been changed and good for that.
But some JF dude, who may not have read his mail (in the case you're still referring to) and saw the war-dec, logged to save his ship. It's a non-issue because he could have done 3 or 4 things - all perfectly legal - BEFORE he gate jumped to mitigate the need to log.
Now if he had come through in a BS, taunted, baited and agressed then bugged out, I'd agree totally with your argument.
Making a change to a game mechanic over an issue that doesn't happen very often (and you said as much yourself) is pointless. If we all asked for changes "because there was this one time when...." CCP would still be working on the undocking code.
For mine, it's the relevance of logging to avoid aggression, not the topic itself that is at question. It's too minor to bother with. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
|
Martinez
T-Cells Moar Tears
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 22:17:00 -
[28] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Martinez wrote: Again, tell me why the change shouldnt happen. Use reasons other than attacks on me. It doesnt matter what percentage of my kills are missed from this. Its the point that logging off shouldnt be a viable tactic to save your ship.
Look, I spend a lot of time here, and I get flamed heaps for doing it, putting forward ideas for debate, opening my own mind to possibilities and sometimes, just sometimes, it proves/disproves a consensus. I hate "status quo" and I hate "that's the way it's always been done" or "them's the rules" as an argument. It's such a shallow minded and fixed mentality that I dismiss people that do it as mindless morons. I've written some things which I thought at the time were mind-shattering revelations only to find them blatantly and repeatedly flamed/bashed/trolled etc. etc.... Because it was:- 1) A dumb idea and my own understanding didn't see that 2) It's a great idea but some players have such a small mindset they can't see the value 3) It's a great idea but goes against an individuals "sandbox" ideal 4) It's a mediocre idea and doesn't warrant a mention or discussion. In your case, and I feel for the trolling you're copping, it's seen as a non-issue. Logoffski in space to escape a fight was in my view very "cowardly" - if that is even a term to use in Eve. You came to fight and bugged out when you started losing. That's been changed and good for that. But some JF dude, who may not have read his mail (in the case you're still referring to) and saw the war-dec, logged to save his ship. It's a non-issue because he could have done 3 or 4 things - all perfectly legal - BEFORE he gate jumped to mitigate the need to log. Now if he had come through in a BS, taunted, baited and agressed then bugged out, I'd agree totally with your argument. Making a change to a game mechanic over an issue that doesn't happen very often (and you said as much yourself) is pointless. If we all asked for changes "because there was this one time when...." CCP would still be working on the undocking code. For mine, it's the relevance of logging to avoid aggression, not the topic itself that is at question. It's too minor to bother with.
But, again why not change it. Changes are made all the time. Like the SC nerf. It was done to make EVE a better game. I still see no reason why this change shouldnt happen and why logging off to save your ship is still a valid tactic endorsed by 80% of the forum community. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 23:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
Martinez wrote: But, again why not change it. Changes are made all the time. Like the SC nerf. It was done to make EVE a better game. I still see no reason why this change shouldnt happen and why logging off to save your ship is still a valid tactic endorsed by 80% of the forum community. And why hasn't the game been made for the better? Cause you can't. Your looking at an 8+ year old game using ideas from the end of the 90s. It takes CCP so long (like SC to be buffed then nerfed into oblivion) to get their ass in gear and what have we had the last 2 expansions...unfinished crap thats basicly a preview to come. While Sony is kicking out expansions like a man with diarrea and if there was a game breaking issue they fixed it asap.
There are other ideas I would like addressed as well, which could improve the game for the whole.
I had experience loss in EQ, I didn't like it but it was minor at best so didn't bother me that much and since its been so long since I played but they practicly removed it and the hell levels + the quick levels after it. In EVE, **** me but no way in ******* hell I should stress out having to update my clone every damn time I am podded incase I have a "Opps, I forgot" moment, cause I invested RL money into this TIMESINK valued at months over 2 years now to get where I am and no ******* way I want to loose something like Marauder or Minmatar BS 5 that might take another couple weeks to get back....when I still have months to get where I want to go because the prereqs just to get another ship class takes months on top of that. I should love the idea of beening set back weeks that I basicly already paided for? Sorry, no but its CCP's problem more then mine that your angry I can't be bothered to engage someone in combat. Let me buy back lost SP with isk so I can get back into the game with what I enjoy flying...holy **** an isk sink! Guess what while you popped my clone and I lost a skill which means I can no longer certain fly that ship for awhile until it trains back...opps CCP destroyed a possible isk sink cause I can't fly a more expensive T2 ship and stuck flying a T1 instead.
SP accumulation. For a real timed based concept that to hit the end game SP cap which never can never happen, it is so stupid. Why should I decide how to have my fun between PVE at full point accumulation and less accumulation with cheaper implants? Thats so stupid, its not the final destination but the journey there and putting in speed bumps, bumper to crawling bumper traffic, and detours is asinine. Its artificially induced buzzkill, I pay to play not min/max my attribute remap for one year cause its "pro" while throwing in all these random required primary which I am not specced for....it still takes years to get anywhere with a perfect skill set. And here is another isk sink idea....instead of implants how about a "POS Fuel" concept in space stations of your choice which is cheaper to maintain in the short run but cost the same in the long run....loose a pod and +5 implants is a huge erection dropper but if I loose say 10 million a week in POS fuels to max out a Perc/Will without some jackhole giving me a gold shower to make himself feel good I could at the same time worry less about the risk loss of loosing more ship hulls (think, less loss of implants and more loss of ships = isk sink) and more about the rewards of just playing the game. Couple that with SP loss of above wall of text
Jump gates. My god for a sci-fi MMO in space its certainly not spacey. Its just pre-designated fly to points with kill zones thats basicly WTZ (AFK across the Karanas) and when I jump through I am landing in a 20km radius zone of death with instant lockers and poppers. I gave up on lowsec, to much work to gain the necessary isk to fit even a rifter only to be popped at particular gates in seconds. I spent 6 hours one day, trying to find a suitable location in lowsec for an alt to do PI and I checked dotlans, the 1 hour destroyed, 24 destroyed, pods lossed...everything to try to avoid it all and risk the so called rewards. I think, F*CK YEAH can do this, load up an industrial with a few command centers, and head out into the unknown. Guess what, for 6 hours work I got to play in lowsec for all of 3 jumps. Not my ******* problem anymore. 200km spawn zone so I at least have a running chance, cause gate camping is a science broken down into easy to do steps.
Highsec. Should be less incentive to PVP there with decent enough PVE rewards to get by if you get set back. Some people are casual like myself, you are "pro-hardcore high blood pressure heart attack inducing" that thinks everything is destroy on sight. Here is a hint: dude seriously not everyone lives in a world of high risk all the time and if they want to challenge the risk they go to Las Vegas they don't pull out a shot gun and start shooting the neighbors. Yeah, would like to do PVE and PVP when I feel like it (and PVE doesn't work with PVP cause I have never heard of a PVE ship winning a fight). Not saying a PVE friendly zone, just less attraction for guys like Goons to pull their **** off all the time or stupid annoying ninjas buzzing around like flies around horse **** (here is a hint, MMO = interact instead of take, ask and let me check the wrecks for anything I want and I might just let you have the rest).
There are more ideas out there to reduce the stress of the risk (cause its a damn game, not serious bizness). If one ship gets away, its another fight for another day. If you think your issue should be addressed, then ALL issues from high/low/null to be addressed to bring about a more stable EVE instead of a FPS mentality with a crap community that doesn't give a damn about anyone but themselves. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
460
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 03:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:There are other ideas I would like addressed as well, which could improve the game for the whole. While I appreciate your enthusiasm that was a horrible, horrible post. :cripes: The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |