Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
976
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:22:00 -
[151] - Quote
Sounds like they're up in arms over the profits their fleets of ratting bots will lose. Dunno why they are whining when all they have to do is take the ISK themselves, or better yet, just blow the ESS up. Guess they don't want to adapt, like they're always spewing to others in game. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Does anybody else notice this? CCP SonicLover! *giggles like a schoolgirl* XD Create a new, pretty, female character! Make the name count! Join the epic boo bees! (RP,PvE/PvP,wardecs,new players!) You're at it from day 0! |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9825
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:26:00 -
[153] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:Oh the irony... so called hardcore PvPers complaining about a PVE aspect of the game. Looks like someone calculated how much their ratting bot fleets will lose, and decided to do a call to arms on the forums.
How do you adapt to this?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Logical 101
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
375
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:28:00 -
[154] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Interceptors do not befuddle or terrify me, they are simply imbalanced in the current pass due to the inability to force engagement with them and remove them from space in general or the area of operations. If anything I'd say that you not understanding the core tenants of what the problem is with nano'd kiting ceptors is either due to your own lack of knowledge of game mechanics or at best a low grade troll v0v. At the moment due to the changes in nullification of that particular style of ship my gang and interceptor gangs generally just stare at each other or watch each other pass by. They can't engage us because we'd kill them if they commit. We can't catch and engage them because it's mechanically impossible unless someone screws up so bad that they forget where the "Jump" button is. From the artcile by Mynnna, available for your viewing pleasure on SPACEMITTENDOTCOM...
Quote:As CCP has worked to rebalance Tech II ships, the common theme has been specialization. No rebalance so far has showcased this better than the Interceptor balancing planned for Rubicon. They will receive one big buff via the warp speed revamps. Combined with a new role bonus - bubble immunity - they will become the unquestioned kings of mobility. And just in case you thought CCP never listened to the players or the CSM, this idea actually comes from former CSM member Prometheus Exenthal. Other common changes include a buff to lock range (although not so much that you won't want to consider lock range upgrades) and a reaping of cargo capacity. If you want to leverage their bubble immunity to build an uncatchable cyno ship, be prepared to gimp your fit. The lamentations of nullbears, are like a sweet wine to me.
I suppose this somehow makes you the odd man out. Some kind of rare specimen from another world. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2288
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:28:00 -
[155] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Quote:They can't engage us because we'd kill them if they commit. We can't catch and engage them Gangs picking their fights based on mobility and engagement profile. The horror.
Literally every other gang in the game can have engagements forced on them via some function, be it drops, counter drops, warp ins, bait or just catching them on the gate. Currently a nano'd malediction is functionally impossible to catch on a gate due to server ticks, it's immune to bubbles, even with MWD on it has enough agility to warp away while not aligned if you get a warp in before you can start locking, and it can do the same to a covert drop due to the glorious grid loading speeds of swapping systems. There's still bait, but most of the ships that can tie them down he'd simply never let himself be in point range of.
Most of these things don't apply to say a Taranis because it's generally a close range ship, and somewhat slow. But a malediction? Gets downright broken.
Really they just need their agility nerfed slightly, then a competent gang can catch them on a gate at least, and they'd have to have a gimmick fit ship to do it (dual sebod/rigged stilleto). |
Rastafarian God
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:35:00 -
[156] - Quote
I personally think the existence of the module itself is kind of silly. Putting money in a "can" and letting it float in space? It seems like an unneeded and complicated step that just does not need to be there. If it was intended as a sink I can agree with the null guys, a flat rate cut would be better. the thing is, I dont believe that's why they exist.
I believe CCP is trying to think of ways to dream up player owned deployables in order to just test out how it all works together both code wise and how we will react to it. Rubicon is about player interaction and capuleeers taking over more parts of the game after all. Its the same reason the MTU and that other silly thing exist.
Although I agree this ratting thing sound like something I would come up with drunk, Im not buying that you cant protect it if you really want to. Alone? maybe not, buy your in null, you wouldnt live out there if you didn't have decent numbers.
An intercepter has to hang around long enough (and close enough) for a ship to at least lock it to steal from the unit. One person sitting on the unit with a scram and web will ruin an interceptors day. From what Im reading, scram and web range is a bit farther then the access range of the unit. Just form a small "ratting brigade", plan accordingly, and you should be fine.
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:37:00 -
[157] - Quote
Logical 101 wrote: The lamentations of nullbears, are like a sweet wine to me.
I suppose this somehow makes you the odd man out. Some kind of rare specimen from another world.
Not really. The general consensus amongst most null dwellers (Even ones that I technically hate) is that something got a wee bit over buffed again. It happens. Your constant insistence that me stating that something is broken and providing arguments to support my claims is somehow breaking my mind down with rage and unquiet thoughts is kind of amusing, it's like an overdone "u mad bro?" |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:38:00 -
[158] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote: An intercepter has to hang around long enough (and close enough) for a ship to at least lock it to steal from the unit. One person sitting on the unit with a scram and web will ruin an interceptors day. From what Im reading, scram and web range is a bit farther then the access range of the unit. Just form a small "ratting brigade", plan accordingly, and you should be fine.
Tanked bomber with a scram and a web sitting next to it would do the trick. Mainly because it's a unique situation that requires an interceptor stay still.You'd rely on backup for the kill. But again you'd be better off just not deploying one and dumping that SB pilot into another ratting ship. |
Joan Greywind
No Swag Initiative
274
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Milton Middleson wrote:Quote:They can't engage us because we'd kill them if they commit. We can't catch and engage them Gangs picking their fights based on mobility and engagement profile. The horror. Literally every other gang in the game can have engagements forced on them via some function, be it drops, counter drops, warp ins, bait or just catching them on the gate. Currently a nano'd malediction is functionally impossible to catch on a gate due to server ticks, it's immune to bubbles, even with MWD on it has enough agility to warp away while not aligned if you get a warp in before you can start locking, and it can do the same to a covert drop due to the glorious grid loading speeds of swapping systems. There's still bait, but most of the ships that can tie them down he'd simply never let himself be in point range of. Most of these things don't apply to say a Taranis because it's generally a close range ship, and somewhat slow. But a malediction? Gets downright broken. Really they just need their agility nerfed slightly, then a competent gang can catch them on a gate at least, and they'd have to have a gimmick fit ship to do it (dual sebod/rigged stilleto).
Just like the catalyst is the bane of afk miners, so shall ceptors be for the semi-afk ratters.
Null tears, tasty. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18894
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:42:00 -
[160] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:incursions and l4's dont generate a ton of isk. Do you have an actual source for this? Because last time we saw any numbers on it, incursions and L4s generated about half as much in their agent rewards alone as all manners of bounties (including the ones generated from missions) did.
That's a ton of ISK right thereGǪ
Anyway, all the stated reasons for the introduction of the ESS are counterproductive, contradictory to the design goals, or just outright fabrications. That hardly bodes well for the rest of the designGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Logical 101
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:47:00 -
[161] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Not really. The general consensus amongst most null dwellers (Even ones that I technically hate) is that something got a wee bit over buffed again. It happens. Your constant insistence that me stating that something is broken and providing arguments to support my claims is somehow breaking my mind down with rage and unquiet thoughts is kind of amusing, it's like an overdone "u mad bro?" I think you fail to see the truth of it.
A strongly player supported concept is suggested by CSM and is implemented. Most people have a lot of fun with it (well, the ones who don't have their heads shoved firmly up their asses). Fail PvPers unable to either utilize interceptors properly by being creative and embracing target selection in order to inflict pain and weepy nullbears unable to cope with this new threat claim "imbalance" and, as you have done, declare the concept to be failed and unpopular.
Same goes for the ESS. Yeah, it's probably an inconvenience to many people, but those who either benefit from it by using it correctly... in their vast amounts of space (*cough*)... or otherwise ignore it (and take the microscopic hit) will be the ones who don't experience selective memory problems and, eventually, aneurisms over well-intentioned modifications to the game. It's like watching a politician flip-flop on a suddenly relevant topic. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:47:00 -
[162] - Quote
Joan Greywind wrote: Just like the catalyst is the bane of afk miners, so shall ceptors be for the semi-afk ratters.
Null tears, tasty.
What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives. |
Logical 101
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:49:00 -
[163] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives Then fly a ****ing interceptor!
Christ man, you crack me up. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9825
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:51:00 -
[164] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote:
Although I agree this ratting thing sound like something I would come up with drunk, Im not buying that you cant protect it if you really want to. Alone? maybe not, buy your in null, you wouldnt live out there if you didn't have decent numbers.
Most systems cannot support more than ten people running anoms and with them only needing a minute and intercepters being immune to warp bubbles its a very easy task for most small gangs to steal from these things. By the time you dock up, get into the correct ships to counter them and warp to the structure they will likely be gone.
The only realistic chance to defend these things is to have an alt baby sitting the structure but that means sacrificing an account which would be earning a lot more just ratting.
There is nothing positive with this plan. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rastafarian God
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:53:00 -
[165] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Tanked bomber with a scram and a web sitting next to it would do the trick. Mainly because it's a unique situation that requires an interceptor stay still.You'd rely on backup for the kill. But again you'd be better off just not deploying one and dumping that SB pilot into another ratting ship.
So there is your counter. Wich means it is not broken, just an overall stupid idea.
If your just better off not using the thing instead of using one and protecting it, then just don't use it. If no one uses them, then its essentially just a 5% flat cut like people would prefer (although granted with a way around it if you want to do the work).
I personally wonder if CCP would bother keeping them in the game if literally no one ever used them.
|
Dave Stark
4191
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:56:00 -
[166] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote:So there is your counter.
it's not a counter if a better solution is to not use an ESS and put the "counter" in another ratting ship. that just illustrates how bad the idea is.
the counter is to not use an ESS at all. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:00:00 -
[167] - Quote
Logical 101 wrote: I think you fail to see the truth of it.
A strongly player supported concept is suggested by CSM and is implemented. Most people have a lot of fun with it (well, the ones who don't have their heads shoved firmly up their asses). Fail PvPers unable to either utilize interceptors properly by being creative and embracing target selection in order to inflict pain and weepy nullbears unable to cope with this new threat claim "imbalance" and, as you have done, declare the concept to be failed and unpopular.
Once again you are arguing against a straw man. You assume because I think something is broken means I either can't use it, or don't know how to use it effectively. I call it imbalance because they can't be killed without gross pilot error. I get to that conclusion by saying "How would I fly a Malediction given this particular subset of skills/hull bonuses etc". Now I don't fly a malediction due to atrophied missile skills and way too much invested in gunnery but I've been flying my stiletto in laps from curse to vale, passing through syndicate for giggles, and you know what? I'm impossible to kill in this thing. Oh sure one day I'll make a mistake due to alcohol and tackle a curse or something dumb like that, but barring stupidity? I'm going to bring it home every time. Every other hull I have has a little "Oh **** competent people are going to kill me no matter what I do" built in. But not this one.
I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that. |
illirdor
Upper Class Goat
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:02:00 -
[168] - Quote
im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD
Soooo this is my sig....-á |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:03:00 -
[169] - Quote
Logical 101 wrote:SmilingVagrant wrote:What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives Then fly a ****ing interceptor! Christ man, you crack me up.
I do! and I meant risk into the interceptors life. A ship immune to being killed while just traveling from gate to gate annoys the hell out of me. I ***** about nullified T3's too, though they derp a bit more than a ceptor with nanos do thanks to align times.
illirdor wrote:im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD
Admittedly so am I. |
Dave Stark
4191
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:04:00 -
[170] - Quote
illirdor wrote:im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD
but you can't deploy them in high sec... |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9826
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:05:00 -
[171] - Quote
Rastafarian God wrote:SmilingVagrant wrote:
Tanked bomber with a scram and a web sitting next to it would do the trick. Mainly because it's a unique situation that requires an interceptor stay still.You'd rely on backup for the kill. But again you'd be better off just not deploying one and dumping that SB pilot into another ratting ship.
So there is your counter. Wich means it is not broken, just an overall stupid idea. If your just better off not using the thing instead of using one and protecting it, then just don't use it. If no one uses them, then its essentially just a 5% flat cut like people would prefer (although granted with a way around it if you want to do the work). I personally wonder if CCP would bother keeping them in the game if literally no one ever used them.
That leaves us with a 5% nerf to an activity that is already paying out less than you can make in high sec level 4s.
Will high sec income also be getting nerfed to compensate this loss in income? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Logical 101
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:07:00 -
[172] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Once again you are arguing against a straw man. Repetition reinforcement goes both ways.
SmilingVagrant wrote:I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that. Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly committed mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt.
a falsis principiis proficisci |
Trii Seo
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:14:00 -
[173] - Quote
I think a lot of people are actually missing the point in this thread, too. Null people ("nullbears" how they're called nowadays) aren't concerned about "ermagawdmyiskies". 5% is a nerf but hey, we still have moons and the hilarious top-down income that means you buy a ship once and then get reimbursed when you lose it. You literally ride on the same ISK investment if you want to do just fleets, and that's not mentioning peacetime reimbursements for random gangs.
With cash like this you can afford to buy stupid ships an die in them or have surplus cash as a reserve.
The first point, I guess, would be the fact that CCP is offering a raidable structure that offers a staggering, mindblowing... 5%! bonus to bounty payouts. At the risk of 20-25% overall income. Given individual bounties are so low they force people to AFK rat in drone ships for hours or build overly expensive faction/t3 ships designed to burn through anomalies before even bounties tick, it doesn't seem it's going to be worth it.
In short, CCP managed to come up with something uniquely idiotic, useless and tries to do something with broken PvE instead of, I don't know, fixing the damn broken PvE.
Second point is - it's yet another nerf to null grunt-level income. There's even less incentive to get out there and poke some rats in hostile space because "omg bounties so high let's go belt rat". The case of "why bother risking your ship?" is already up there because of incursions/l4's being a safer and more profitable way of earning money. The words "nullsec income" should cause people to drool and try to cut themselves a nice slice, not say "cool, I make more in hisec incursions/farming LP in fw anyway".
I somehow fail to see how a "Guys! Guys! let's go travel a region of gatecamps and baddies to raid a structure for 20m ISK split between our 10 man fleet!" scenario will happen - it should be more like "Hey guys, let's form a fleet to nab a DED Complex and get the 1bn BPC inside. 2 dudes run it in Tengus, rest gets into assfrigs and holds on the gate" Is it Hotdrop O'Clock yet?
Covert pilots unite! Safer working conditions, less accidental limb loss due to unfortunate Cyno accidents! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=258986 |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:15:00 -
[174] - Quote
Logical 101 wrote:SmilingVagrant wrote:Once again you are arguing against a straw man. Repetition reinforcement goes both ways. SmilingVagrant wrote:I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that. Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly apathetic mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt. a falsis principiis proficisci
Are you really arguing that I shouldn't think something is broken because I'm refusing to exploit something (That I am exploiting in reality)? Don't get me wrong I have no problem utilizing inherently broken mechanics to my advantage, but that doesn't stop me from objectively arguing that they are broken as well. That's not intellectually bankrupt at all. |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:16:00 -
[175] - Quote
OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.
its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.
if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.
Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!
get a god damn grip
posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand
personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
629
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:17:00 -
[176] - Quote
Logical 101 wrote:SmilingVagrant wrote:Once again you are arguing against a straw man. Repetition reinforcement goes both ways. SmilingVagrant wrote:I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that. Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly committed mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt. a falsis principiis proficisci
Would you post some facts, or debate the posts addressed to you that have facts, instead of ****Ing up the thread with your terrible pontificating.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9826
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:21:00 -
[177] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.
its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.
if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.
Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!
get a god damn grip
posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand
personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.
Its the fact that over the last decade null has seen nerf after nerf to its income and we are now at the point where high sec offers much better income. This latest nerf is simply making the problem even worse. There is no reason at all to run anoms over high sec level 4s. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1078
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:21:00 -
[178] - Quote
WASPY69 wrote:+1 The most useless, irrelevant addition to EVE in a long time. Not only that, but it spams local worse than Jita isk doublers...
"EVE System > *Person1* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System" "EVE System > *Person2* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System" "EVE System > None is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System" "EVE System > *Person1* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System" "EVE System > None is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"
And it goes on and on and on and on... make it stahp!
The Idea is not stupid. THe implementation is short of what is needed altouhg. Such concept can create small scale warfare. Can create space for raidign parties disrupt economy.
It woudl be an important step into FIXING 0.0
But 5% reward ove 5% risk is not ok. Should be 10% investment.. 15% bonus. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1078
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:23:00 -
[179] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:tiberiusric wrote:OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.
its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.
if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.
Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!
get a god damn grip
posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand
personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it. Its the fact that over the last decade null has seen nerf after nerf to its income and we are now at the point where high sec offers much better income. This latest nerf is simply making the problem even worse. There is no reason at all to run anoms over high sec level 4s.
You know that this is a LIE. You know very well thatyou can make far far more isk per hour in 0.0. THe only place in high sec where you do near that level of isk per our is incursions. but those you cannot just get home and spend 30 mintues doing it. You need to get on wait list and wait for 2 hours before you start doing money.
If 0.0 is so much less productive than high sec? Why you guys fich so many wars for the income resources of 0.0?
SImplyu, this is a #!@#!@ excuse. 0.0 income is still 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than high sec (except commerce of course) "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2290
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:24:00 -
[180] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.
its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.
if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.
Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!
get a god damn grip
posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand
personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.
Dude like 95% of the botting in eve comes from the terrible highsec hellhole, and with the number of small alliance signatories on that thing posted I'd say this isn't "Big Goon" holding you down.
Not to mention I bet a bot would clock the ESS more efficiently than any goofy player would. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |