Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:56:00 -
[361] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Here's a fact that you seem to be forgetting. Blockade runners can warp cloaked.
Indeed they can.
What does that change? You're still asking for a target that guarantees you a payout.
Risk and reward is one of two things in the case of ganking:
1) There's a chance your gank will fail. 2) There's a chance your payout is lower than the cost of your gank ship.
1) Won't happen unless you're a fail ganker. Besides which, for the purposes of this discussion, we're assuming you're going to get the kill. Blockade Runner or no, we're talking about you hitting a transport ship with high enough Alpha to guarantee the kill.
So that leaves (2).
.
Or, let me frame it a different way:
Suppose the BR cargo scan immunity goes away.
What is the risk to a ganker choosing to attack the ship now, in your eyes?
.
It isn't loss of your ganking ships - you're already assuming that's going to happen (CONCORD).
It isn't that your gank will fail (that the BR will have high resistances against you or will have target lock breakers to break your scramble on it so it can get away.)
What risk remains to the GANKER if the BR can now be scanned by the ganker and he/she/they know if the BR has valuable target or not?
Risk vs reward only works if there is a risk. If there's no longer a risk to the gankers, ganking becomes a no risk, all reward affair.
And, as you have so aptly stated, that's not good gameplay.
.
So, in your mind, what would the risk be to the ganker if the BRs could be cargo scanned? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5341
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Before demanding that I learn to accept your opinion as gospel truth, and suggesting that people who disagree with you are fools, you might want to try being a little more polite on the forums. Also try presenting your opinion as your opinion, and the two of you could learn to perform basic research before making bizarre claims such as "BR never get ganked." Nobody said that.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You're just asking to keep what you have now, which is a ship that literally won't be ganked ever regardless of if you're flying it like a moron or not.
Okay, you didn't say "BR never get ganked" you said "literally won't be ganked ever."
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's not overall profitable to gank them because:
GǪ you're doing it wrong? GǪ you're smashing everything without paying attention to who is buying what? GǪ you're not setting up traps? GǪ you're expecting the game to be changed to support your play style?
In the end, your only argument appears to be that you don't like the extra risk associated with ganking BRs because you can only function when all the answers are known.
I'm not sure that you're picking up what CCP is putting down. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Oxide Ammar
128
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:46:00 -
[363] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: GǪ you're doing it wrong? GǪ you're smashing everything without paying attention to who is buying what? GǪ you're not setting up traps? GǪ you're expecting the game to be changed to support your play style?
In the end, your only argument appears to be that you don't like the extra risk associated with ganking BRs because you can only function when all the answers are known.
I'm not sure that you're picking up what CCP is putting down.
To make it simple, they think cloak is enough to justify defending BR running from gate to gate carrying expensive cargo but they want to smite with god's hammer all "morons and idiots" who auto pilot their BR around but only the ones worth getting punished for being lazy afk from their computers, the rest with empty/worthless cargos can pass through with no punishment.... |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11701
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:07:00 -
[364] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:
I'm confused, why is it bad gameplay?
You take a risk, you might get a reward. Sounds like good gameplay to me.
It is impossible to see what they are carrying which means every time you gank one you are relying upon luck, It doest add risk it simply turns it into a gamble that you will lose in the long run.
The ship already lets people be easily immune to a ship scanner if you fly it well so it does not need this safety net for people who fly the ship badly. Removing it would not remove the ships ability to avoid ship scanners and we would at least have a chance to grab a scan.
Both sides would get what they want. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
793
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 12:38:00 -
[365] - Quote
Prowler: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75(+25) / 60(+20) / 40 / 50
Instead of a EM hole it is now best resist? interesting. |
Kaito Rei
Jion Keanturi
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 13:19:00 -
[366] - Quote
It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.
Some Points. In terms of lore it makes absolute sense for them to be unscannable. So if they decide to do that, so be it.
If BRs are scannable: With valueable cargo:
- A smart pilot will warp to zero and instantly enable the cloak once he appears in the system. he will most likely not be scanned and therefore not be ganked.
- A not so smart pilot might fly afk, could eventually be scanned and might be ganked.
Without valueable cargo:
- A smart pilot knows that there is no profit for someone ganking his ship. but there is a calculated risk to flying afk because there are people who just kill **** for the heck of it but, well mostly they seek profit while doing so. He might fly afk.
- A not so smart pilot will fly afk and he faces the same risk. even if he doesn't know of it.
If BRs are not scannable: With valueable cargo:
- A smart pilot will warp to zero and instantly enable the cloak once he appears in the system. He will not be scanned and therefore not be ganked. He will most likely not fly afk.
- A not so smart pilot might fly afk, cannot be scanned but people might suspect a valueable cargo and gank him anyways.
Without valueable cargo:
- A smart pilot knows that there is no profit for someone ganking his ship. There is however a risk to flying afk because people might suspect he has valueable cargo even if he doesn't. So if he is ganked he will have a loss even though the ganker has no profit. He will most likely not fly afk.
- A not so smart pilot might fly afk, cannot be scanned but people might suspect a valueable cargo and gank him anyways.
So basically if they remain scannable the situation remains about the same as we have now. Smart pilots will not be ganked and not so smart pilots will be ganked.
If they become unscannable then most likely the current gank-rates will drop due to the ganking of blockade runners' risk of not having any cargo. Smart pilots without valueable cargo will no longer fly afk because they now have the same risk of getting ganked as the not so smart pilots with valueable cargo that fly afk.
Unscannable BRs have no upside for smart pilots it only forces them not to fly afk when empty. It has however the benefit for the not so smart afk-flying pilot because now the overall risk of being ganked is lower.
For the Ganker the risk-reward factor of executing a gank might become so unpredictable that they might stop ganking BRs entirely. Or not. We might never find out...
So far, let me know what you think of this assessment.
Kaito Rei. |
Ivan Isovich
Clutter Conglomerate CAStabouts
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:27:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The velocity bonus doesn't help much, and on all at1 industrials it was awitched to agility which is mountains better on this kind of ship. Yes, an agility bonus would be more powerful. That doesn't mean it's the best bonus to give the ship.
Agree with Fozzie on this one. Agility would be more powerful out of the gate, but giving it a buff to speed makes it able to 'almost' outrun an interceptor...accounting for the reaction time of the interceptor pilot....and then it would outrun almost everything else. That makes it a fairly powerful upgrade.
I like these changes. They help distinguish the defining characteristics of the different races, too....making the Amarr and Minmatar ships an option.
But, as an additional thought for the Devs: The Viator becomes an obvious choice for a lot of industrial pilots b/c of the base industrials. Skilling to 5 for the Gallente Industrial benefits the huge offerings from that race, and makes the Viator a better choice than the others. Maybe a new set of industrials in the other racial lines would be in order? Either comparable transports for the specialty goods like PI and ore in each race, or (preferably) something entirely new. (A bay for packaged ships--a frigate hauler, perhaps? POS Fuel hold?) |
Ivan Isovich
Clutter Conglomerate CAStabouts
3
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:44:00 -
[368] - Quote
Kaito Rei wrote:It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.
I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus. Any competent BR pilot would never autopilot their ship.
What might be interesting is swapping the unscannable cargo from the covert ops boats to the other blockade runners since the covert ops boats will be able to cloak up and essentially be unscannable anyway. Not suggesting this...but something to think about. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11703
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 14:48:00 -
[369] - Quote
Ivan Isovich wrote:Kaito Rei wrote:It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.
I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus. Any competent BR pilot would never autopilot their ship. What might be interesting is swapping the unscannable cargo from the covert ops boats to the other blockade runners since the covert ops boats will be able to cloak up and essentially be unscannable anyway. Not suggesting this...but something to think about.
I would like it to be put on the DST and be for NPC scanners but not player scanners. This would give the DST a role as the go to ship for smuggling drugs ect. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10031
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:02:00 -
[370] - Quote
Ivan Isovich wrote:Kaito Rei wrote:It is somewhat funny to read the whole discussion of 'should they be scannable or not'.
I find it funny because I didn't see anyone recently mention the isk-reward difference. A ganker intent on boosting killmails would always win the isk war against even a heavily tanked transport...a ship that's worth at least 100m versus 2-3 catalysts worth 30m. The question of scannable or not is rather irrelevant since they would win whether the hold was empty or not. If it has something juicy in it, then they get a bonus. Nobody cares about ISK efficiency. ISK efficiency isn't profit. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10031
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:18:00 -
[371] - Quote
It's ******* ******** that we can't post killmails here. That needs to change. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10033
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:25:00 -
[372] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's not overall profitable to gank them because: GǪ you're doing it wrong? GǪ you're smashing everything without paying attention to who is buying what? GǪ you're not setting up traps? GǪ you're expecting the game to be changed to support your play style? The game was changed a while back to support a nonsensical playstyle - in other words, the blockade runner pilot who benefits from having your cargo immune to scanning or not.
Clearly they do benefit from it, or they wouldn't be begging to keep it. And since they do benefit, that means they place themselves in a position where it's relevant. In other words, they autopilot. These people shouldn't be coddled by a game mechanic that protects their ability to haul expensive cargo with near impunity and zero effort. If you want to haul things in your BR safely, it's extremely easy - fit a covops cloak and use it. If you refuse to do that and you're carrying expensive cargo, you deserve to be scanned and ganked. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 18:42:00 -
[373] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:Sheeana Harb wrote:Great changes, I'm glad to see increased cargo, especially for Prowler, as he will be able to transport cruisers. Yay!
One suggestion that isn't really related to the balance, but could you please consider using:
"Immune to player cargo scanning."
instead of
"Immune to cargo scanning." in the ship description ?
The current description suggests that the ship is immune to NPC scanning (i.e. illegal goods) which to the best of my knowledge isn't true. Or make the ability "immune to CONCORD/Customs scanning". That would help booster sales.
I actually agree with this a lot. The scanning immunity is kinda useless against players due to cloak, and it flat does not work against CONCORD or Customs Officers. A buff to the booster manufacturing industry would be nice, as in their current iteration, the only market you really have is your own alliance.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10037
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:11:00 -
[374] - Quote
It should be something like -20% detection chance per level of the transport ships skill. So not outright immunity to customs scanning unless you have transport ships 5. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:43:00 -
[375] - Quote
It's already as been proved than scan immunity is a way to force BR pilot ,to actively fly the ship.
There is no need to remove the characteristic as it's quite easy to suicide gank an AP BR for a minimal loose a meta 3 Catalyst cost 4 M you only need 2 of them to blap it in a 0.6 system .
Anyone can go on Zkillboard >class >blockade runner take the first ten kill in high sec system add the the dropped values and remove the value of 20 meta 3 cat ,to see than blapping AP BR is already a quite profitable sport .
Asking to remove the charasteristic is only a way to abuse lag,insta locking,forced uncloacking,bumping and human error to increase profit on actively flied BR . |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
464
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:11:00 -
[376] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Clearly they do benefit from it, or they wouldn't be begging to keep it. And since they do benefit, that means they place themselves in a position where it's relevant. In other words, they autopilot.
This is incorrect.
Myrthiis wrote:It's already as been proved than scan immunity is a way to force BR pilot ,to actively fly the ship. This is correct.
I'm a BR pilot, and I'd rather lose the immunity. It puts a huge target on my head, to the point where I'm unwilling to AFK on a gate for 60 secs while I take a leak. Now, I'm a good pilot - I have undocks at all major hubs, know how to use a cloak properly, and all that goodness. I've never lost a BR to a gank. But having the immunity adds another PITA level to flying that I associate more with lowsec play then HS.
The fact is that the immunity makes life more dangerous for BR pilots, it doesn't protect them. Before the immunity, I might AP a few jumps to give me a chance to make a sandwich or use the bathroom. Now, I cloak up somewhere in space instead. To me, it's nothing more then a minor inconvenience, but it's still a liability. Especially if you try to autopilot.
James has it completely backwards. I want the immunity removed so I can be lazy, not the other way around. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10044
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 21:39:00 -
[377] - Quote
I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 22:40:00 -
[378] - Quote
Nope it 'll only increase risk for active pilot by allowing abuses or tricks if you prefer and reward unactive gameplay . |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
655
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 22:47:00 -
[379] - Quote
So we have tankers who say it's too risky to hank BRs without cargo scan and pilots who say it's too dangerous to fly with scan immunity.
There seems to be a disconnect. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10046
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:02:00 -
[380] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote:Nope it 'll only increase risk for active pilot by allowing abuses or tricks if you prefer Leave the incoherent babble out of balance discussions please. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:33:00 -
[381] - Quote
If disagree with you mean i am incoherent ,i'll gladly take the blame . Unfortunatly except personnal attack and flaming ,you fail to come with arguments . |
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
17
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 02:11:00 -
[382] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling.
You should rewrote your phrase and say .It increases risk for autopiloted empty/low-value cargo hauling, it doesn't change anything for high-value haunling (as you have stated yourself than covops is the thing who does protect them from ganking) and it promote active gameplay over automation for high-value hauling(who is obviously a good thing ). |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11707
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:03:00 -
[383] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling. You should rewrote your phrase and say .It increases risk for autopiloted empty/low-value cargo hauling, it doesn't change anything for high-value haunling ( you have stated yourself than covops is the thing who does protect them from ganking) except it promote active gameplay over automation who is obviously a very good thing .
So why do you want an automatic safety net for when you fly a blockade runner badly?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
392
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:08:00 -
[384] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling.
So one CAN have cake and eat it too. mmm nomm CAKE. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10048
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 04:19:00 -
[385] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling. So one CAN have cake and eat it too. mmm nomm CAKE. Except neither of these are good.
Blockade runners should want to be able to be scanned when they have empty cargoholds. And less risk for going AFK with high-value cargo is not good for the game. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
18
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:19:00 -
[386] - Quote
Sure people like to have their home checked by robbers when they have emptied the safe. And less risk when going in holidays with an alarm,a security guard and attack dogs is not good for the business .
Now is i see better where you 're going .It does make sense or not |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 06:20:00 -
[387] - Quote
Kaito Rei wrote:So far, let me know what you think of this assessment.
Kaito Rei.
Honestly, I see it as being the same before and after. The only difference is that if they're not scannable, there's more risk on the ganker and equal risk (or SLIGHTLY diminished) for the transport pilot. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, both because the "lawful" path should generally be lower risk, as befits the transport role, and because this is already the status quo. Remember - the gankers are pirates. They're inherently engaging in a more risky business by choice and default.
It provides compelling gameplay - do the gankers want to take the risk.
If they become scanable, then it removes basically all (actually DOES remove all) risk from the gankers. The pirates now have a zero-risk venture. Meanwhile, it's an increased risk for the transport pilots from now. Basically, breaking the law becomes the low risk activity.
It was like I asked in my earlier post:
Rena'Thras wrote:Why is it bad gameplay for gankers to have to take a risk? What risk remains to gankers if they could scan BR cargo holds?
baltec1 wrote:It is impossible to see what they are carrying which means every time you gank one you are relying upon luck, It doest add risk it simply turns it into a gamble that you will lose in the long run.
The ship already lets people be easily immune to a ship scanner if you fly it well so it does not need this safety net for people who fly the ship badly. Removing it would not remove the ships ability to avoid ship scanners and we would at least have a chance to grab a scan.
Both sides would get what they want.
I don't see "both sides" getting what they want. I see the gankers getting what they want and GOOD BR pilots coming out equal to what they are now, bad ones losing. This is all to favor the gankers and does nothing for the BR pilots.
So there's no "both sides" getting what they want here.
.
Look, answer my question, because that other guy doesn't want to:
What risk remains to gankers if they could scan BR cargo holds?
.
Give me an answer to that question. Because if this removes the risk to the gankers, now we have to ask, what is the risk to them?
Because no activity in Eve should go without a risk. There should be nothing that makes reward with no risk. The lower the risk, the lower the reward. But we're talking gankers getting stuff for free, basically, with zero risk.
So do tell me - what is the risk to the ganker with an unscanable BR? |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers The Methodical Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 06:40:00 -
[388] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Myrthiis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I said as much before. I don't have it backwards, both perspectives are correct. It increases risk for empty/low-value cargo hauling, and it decreases risk for high-value hauling. You should rewrote your phrase and say .It increases risk for autopiloted empty/low-value cargo hauling, it doesn't change anything for high-value haunling ( you have stated yourself than covops is the thing who does protect them from ganking) except it promote active gameplay over automation who is obviously a very good thing . So why do you want an automatic safety net for when you fly a blockade runner badly?
Honestly, it's not a safety net.
As someone has pointed out - it makes afk piloting a BR more risky. More risk to the BR pilot. And the gamble/risk to the ganker.
It's not a safety net. If anything, it's just a net. You know, the kind that gets caught in your feet and pins you down.
The change doesn't do a lot to super help BR pilots. All it does is increase risk to gankers. Removing it doesn't make the BRs better off, nor does it particularly weaken them. All it does is help gankers lower their risk and increase their reward.
You can see this obvious truth by noting that the ganker types in the thread are 100% in favor of it, and the BR pilots are mixed.
.
For the record, I fly everywhere Cloaked and never use autopilot just because it takes too bloody long. I always warp to 0 to jump and AB or MWD + cloak warp when I get out on the other side. So I don't care about the change one way or the other. Just as far as I can tell, all it serves to do is massively reduce risk for gankers - to the point that piracy becomes a zero risk activity.
...which makes no damn sense! XD |
Redeye Corpholder
Red Eye Mining and Hauling
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 07:35:00 -
[389] - Quote
Will you be able to fit a micro jump drive to a BR? Because that's just wow :3 hello null sec gate camper's river of tears.
Are Hull lengths under review AT ALL? As this is a deep determining factor of the small chance you DO have to get caught and locked.
Changes are great, didnt i read earlier that someone got a viator above 15000m3? hello new market for ship delivery, and also what are people excited to be using that second high for? honestly it means very little to me so i'd like to know why its so celebrated. probably a cyno?
Reworking the EHP profiles though.. obviously some becoming far more squishy then they had been previously. viator losin a chunk of shield hp.. yay for no dcu hull tanking when i accidentally warp to gate with a bunch of flashy reds ^_^
Warp speed is a bonus these things had long coming. Might not seem like they're used deep into null right now but with ANY availability of the MJD cruiser module fitting onto one.. you will see that change being one of the most embraced as these pilots will have shorter overall time investments for trekking back and forth from empire into the deepest reaches of unsecured space.
That having the added (and may i mention LOVELY) side effect of letting more and more people have access to actual logistics in null sec without the ludicrous fees of jump freighters and carriers.
This thread, at least the last few pages is basically spam spam spam about one topic.. one which both parties have mentioned as completely useless.
my opinion? whatever.. from my experience carting countless expensive things to and fro. the only real use for the bonus is undocking. I do not have to take the boring five minutes it takes to make a station escape bookmark. seriously, bookmarking anything just for mobility because of the occasional 2500m+ warpin or chance of being ganked (however low) on undocking is just tedious.
undocking jump-gate cloaked in these ships .. shooting out to a certain distance from the station.. is the invulnerability timer meant to have this effect already?
uhh thanks for the extra cap the reduced mass aaand the cargo on the viator, please fill the explosive hole.
Also, do please consider giving Blockade Runners a role bonus like 50% Micro Jump Drive spool time. :)
thanks again |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10052
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 08:33:00 -
[390] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote:Sure people like to have their home checked by robbers when they have emptied the safe. And less risk when going in holidays with an alarm,a security guard and attack dogs is not good for the business . Now is i see better where you 're going .It does make sense or not Says the person making completely irrelevant analogies. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |