Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Velicitia
Arma Artificer
2610
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:24:00 -
[4201] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote: None of this needs refuting, because you haven't provided any testable demonstration, ie evidence, of your assertion being factual. For example: I have an invisible pink unicorn in my backyard. Can you refute that?
Yeah, I've got all the visible rainbow **** on my lawn ... One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9476
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 09:33:00 -
[4202] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote: None seem capable to refute the fact that suicide ganking is more likely to victimize newer, casual players.
I can do that right now.
No new, casual player has 1.4 billion isk to spend on a freighter. Nor the ability to fly capital ships.
The anti ganking crap is mostly spewed by older, lazy players who don't want to have defend themselves, and gutless trolls like you.
Quote: Why should you get to have your cake and eat it too?
Why should haulers and miners be allowed to live with zero risk?
Quote: It is about time these entitled, high-sec pvp-wannabes start playing the same game as the rest of us.
It's about time people who cry about suicide ganking knock off the crap, and play the game like the real players do. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1618
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:26:00 -
[4203] - Quote
I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5482
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:50:00 -
[4204] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P
They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*.
They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets.
In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied.
*To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Mag's
the united
17806
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:02:00 -
[4205] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*. They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets. In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied. *To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now. But but but, damn they are so cheap and if enough people use them they hurt. How dare people gather together to attain a goal in an MMO, it's simply not fair.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9478
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:22:00 -
[4206] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*. They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets. In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied. *To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now.
Come on, don't bring facts into this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:43:00 -
[4207] - Quote
/kicks pager.
Why didnt that go off when Rod weighed in here.
/dis_gunna_be_gud.jpg.
I find myself wondering why this thread remains open - but it's so very easier for ISD to manage than a million bastard offspring needing repeatedly locked.
I still don't believe this issue is a "problem", it's far from it and damnit it is good fun. It's not about cost. If everything was about cost at the expense of fun, people wouldnt hotdrop a half dozen T1 cruisers - but they do, because it's funny. |
Hengle Teron
Mew Age Outpaws
117
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:01:00 -
[4208] - Quote
lol this "discussion" is still going on ? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7981
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:08:00 -
[4209] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:I just think destroyers have too much firepower only that. They are currently overpowered for their price and make this ganking situation require even less commitment. Had ccp not removed the rof nerf on destroyers probably... probably less people would be complaining. ... and more frigates would be fightign as well :P They removed the ROF nerf at about the same time they removed insurance payouts*. They have also since dramatically increased the potential EHP of the destroyer's gank targets. In other words, it's more expensive to gank than ever before. Which suggests that the people saying "it should be more expensive to gank" will never be satisfied. *To illustrate just how big a change the removal of insurance was, before Incursion, it was cheaper to lose a Battleship in a gank than it is to lose a T2 destroyer now. Come on, don't bring facts into this.
lol
But isn't that always the case. People view the present in a vacuum rather than thinking about what led up to the current situation.
It's why we have all these 'ping pong' situations in life, something happens, someone goes "this needs to change", they change it, that leads to other consequences, then down the road the next guy dealing with those consequences goes "this needs to change". So he changes it, recreating the original problem that needed changing in the 1st place lol.
I just blew my own mind typing that. Anyone got any fix-a-flat or nanite repair paste?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20648
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:16:00 -
[4210] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Where did I ask for CONCORD to be prophylactic? I'm still trying to get my head around this question. Sense, it makes none, unless of course he meant prophetic or prescient.
With reference to Veers Belva's continued success at making himself look like an ignorant tool, the following quote seems to be appropriate.
General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett VC DSO wrote: If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5489
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:20:00 -
[4211] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Where did I ask for CONCORD to be prophylactic? I'm still trying to get my head around this question. Sense, it makes none, unless of course he meant prophetic or prescient.
Prophylaxis can refer to any type of preventative or protective thing.
For example, prophylactic anti-retrovirals are given to medical workers on exposure to suspected HIV+ blood.
But I'm going to imagine that he wants CONCORD to put the target's ship in a big, stretchy, protective balloon. Lubricated for quick warping, of course. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7981
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:22:00 -
[4212] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Wow, do you guys just spend all day refreshing the forums? Take some advice from Sol. Take a step back for a moment. Take a look at your post count and then a mirrior and ask yourself if anyone can take you seriously. None seem capable to refute the fact that suicide ganking is more likely to victimize newer, casual players. Nor that suicide ganking carries no significant cost or penalties while reaping potentially incredible profits and devastating losses on victim all within the comfort of high sec. Try to provide an answer as to why people afraid to real pvp, preying upon noobs and casuals in high sec, should have such an easy time in EVE? Why should you get to have your cake and eat it too? It is about time these entitled, high-sec pvp-wannabes start playing the same game as the rest of us.
Why is it so hard for you to conceive of an adult game where no one is being 'victimized'?
And it's insulting when someone says "look in a mirrior" when they refuse to do so themselves. I'll bet you've never asked yourself "id this the kind of game and community i want to be a part of". I have, and the answer is "yes, we're almost all adults here".
You've convinced yourself that some kind of injustice is going on when injustice isn't even possible in a video game about conflict. If you don't like what someone does to you in a video game, just shut it off and do something else.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20648
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:23:00 -
[4213] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Where did I ask for CONCORD to be prophylactic? I'm still trying to get my head around this question. Sense, it makes none, unless of course he meant prophetic or prescient. Prophylaxis can refer to any type of preventative or protective thing. For example, prophylactic anti-retrovirals are given to medical workers on exposure to suspected HIV+ blood. But I'm going to imagine that he wants CONCORD to put the target's ship in a big, stretchy, protective balloon. Lubricated for quick warping, of course. Thanks for the explanation, I was unaware of the medical use of the word.
I too choose to follow your line of thought, would that balloon be ribbed for the targets pleasure?
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:27:00 -
[4214] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Wow, do you guys just spend all day refreshing the forums? Take some advice from Sol. Take a step back for a moment. Take a look at your post count and then a mirrior and ask yourself if anyone can take you seriously. None seem capable to refute the fact that suicide ganking is more likely to victimize newer, casual players. Nor that suicide ganking carries no significant cost or penalties while reaping potentially incredible profits and devastating losses on victim all within the comfort of high sec. Try to provide an answer as to why people afraid to real pvp, preying upon noobs and casuals in high sec, should have such an easy time in EVE? Why should you get to have your cake and eat it too? It is about time these entitled, high-sec pvp-wannabes start playing the same game as the rest of us. Why is it so hard for you to conceive of an adult game where no one is being 'victimized'? And it's insulting when someone says "look in a mirrior" when they refuse to do so themselves. I'll bet you've never asked yourself "id this the kind of game and community i want to be a part of". I have, and the answer is "yes, we're almost all adults here". You've convinced yourself that some kind of injustice is going on when injustice isn't even possible in a video game about conflict. If you don't like what someone does to you in a video game, just shut it off and do something else.
Perhaps it is simply a microcosm of the upcoming generations overly self-entitled attitudes the hand wringing "won't somebody thinkg of x/y/z" politicians have carved out for us.
A prize for every child and all that claptrap. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20648
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:34:00 -
[4215] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Perhaps it is simply a microcosm of the upcoming generations overly self-entitled attitudes the hand wringing "won't somebody thinkg of x/y/z" politicians have carved out for us.
A prize for every child and all that claptrap. Everyone's a winner seems to be a policy rather than a saying these days.
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5489
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:34:00 -
[4216] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Thanks for the explanation, I was unaware of the medical use of the word.
I too choose to follow your line of thought, would that balloon be ribbed for pleasure?
I'm not sure. But it would have to be red, because red go fasta "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20649
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:35:00 -
[4217] - Quote
^^ Defintitely red.
Although some prophylactics are designed to slow you down for a reason..... The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Six Beavers
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:40:00 -
[4218] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Tippia wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:False accusations of lying? No. You were lying, remember? You said that you were familiar with the mechanics, and then you proved that you weren't. So you were lying about that. You also kept saying that bumping is equivalent to a warp scrambler, when it isn't and had long since been demonstrated to you that it wasn't. So you were lying about that too. Quote:Attempting (and failing) to mock linguistics skills? No. Pointing out that you were wilfully misrepresenting (aka lying) about what CCP Falcon had said. Quote:I also note that you were the #4 contributor to CODE in August, Conflict of interest much? Not really, no. Yawn....if bumping makes you unable to warp off...it is functionally equivalent to a warp scrambler. And quoting CCP Falcon can't really by "lying" about what he said.
yawn.... 30-40 pages of this thread and you still don't understand that bumping does not equal warp scram. |
Six Beavers
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:45:00 -
[4219] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I can absolutely confirm that it's Fabulous Rod now. He spun that same Darkfall story in the Rattlesnake thread.
Looks like his attitude hasn't improved any, either. Still expecting the game to cater to his maladjusted expectations, instead of adjusting himself to the reality of the game. And lashing out at anyone who cares to correct him, to boot.
If only he had Fabulous Hair instead of a fabulous rod he might be going somewhere |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5495
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:47:00 -
[4220] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:^^ Defintitely red.
Although some prophylactics are designed to slow you down for a reason.....
Maybe if we work together, we can conceive a reason. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Devils Embrace
Spidercakes Baked Goods and Industriel Servises
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:52:00 -
[4221] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mag's wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:figuring out how to punish people with -10 sec status F1 Blowing up empty pods post-gank is not useful. And shooting at them lets them shoot back at you in gank fitted ships, often a swarm of them.
Pods are like a box of chocolate, you never know whats inside till you open it. could be empty, could be 3 billion in implants. Only one way to find out.... It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass". |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
504
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 12:56:00 -
[4222] - Quote
I have to give props to those who have ever so patiently embraced the voice of reason in this thread. I just don't have the patience anymore to be honest. Every time I engage someone who's unwilling to heed reason/facts/reality I just can't help but escalating to the point where I want to re-enact the horsetrough scene from 'A Clockwork Orange'. So yeah, +1 to all of you.
On the other hand, some people you just can't reach... dammit, now I need to rewatch 'Cool Hand Luke' |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20649
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:02:00 -
[4223] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:^^ Defintitely red.
Although some prophylactics are designed to slow you down for a reason..... Maybe if we work together, we can conceive a reason. A Trojan horse should be used for every conceivable occasion
Terrible condom puns, still more content than what'isnames posts.
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
505
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:07:00 -
[4224] - Quote
Still a better love story than Twilight. |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4358
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:13:00 -
[4225] - Quote
Devils Embrace wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mag's wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:figuring out how to punish people with -10 sec status F1 Blowing up empty pods post-gank is not useful. And shooting at them lets them shoot back at you in gank fitted ships, often a swarm of them. Pods are like a box of chocolate, you never know whats inside till you open it. could be empty, could be 3 billion in implants. Only one way to find out....
As an interesting twist, if you go through my KB back to an Iteron V with cloak and WCS and a pod from the same pilot, that guy was AFK on the sun. Interesting story, he was a suicide ganker's looting alt, and I saw him come through a gate, and tried to catch him with a long point in a Heretic I was in at the time heading to something else. He slipped out of my point, only to warp straight towards the sun.
I landed on the sun, overshooting him by 10km, so I approached and attempted to lock... only to have him cloak. I expected to decloak him just as he was aligned for warp, but he was just sitting there, so I proceeded to point and explode him, completely unaware that he had WCS.
Then, when he exploded, and I moved in to check out the loot, if any, ignoring his pod fully expecting it to just instawarp, as they so often do... but it didn't. I'd finished looting the little he had, and noticed the pod had gone nowhere. I locked it, pointed it, and killed it. Only explanation I can think of is, the guy either didn't see me attempt to grab him at the gate, warped to sun and cloaked without seeing me, then went afk thinking he was safe - or it was a bot. The latter makes more sense in this case, tbh, if you were there witnessing some of his more nuanced oddities. The main indicators of his afk'ness though were the fact that he never warped, even with WCS, and even in his pod.
But, that's not the point. The point is, he was flying an Itty V with a full Crystal set. Who flies Itty V with a crystal set, and on that note, who the **** goes afk with a crystal set? I lol'd all day long. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5499
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:25:00 -
[4226] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:But, that's not the point. The point is, he was flying an Itty V with a full Crystal set. Who flies Itty V with a crystal set, and on that note, who the **** goes afk with a crystal set? I lol'd all day long.
[Tayra, Crystal Badger of my Heart]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
Medium Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400 Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Warp Scrambler II
Light Neutron Blaster II, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
High-grade Crystal Alpha High-grade Crystal Beta High-grade Crystal Gamma High-grade Crystal Delta High-grade Crystal Epsilon High-grade Crystal Omega "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4358
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:30:00 -
[4227] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:But, that's not the point. The point is, he was flying an Itty V with a full Crystal set. Who flies Itty V with a crystal set, and on that note, who the **** goes afk with a crystal set? I lol'd all day long. [Tayra, Crystal Badger of my Heart] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Medium Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400 Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Warp Scrambler II Light Neutron Blaster II, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II High-grade Crystal Alpha High-grade Crystal Beta High-grade Crystal Gamma High-grade Crystal Delta High-grade Crystal Epsilon High-grade Crystal Omega
So.... do you actually fly this?
To be honest though, this is a battlebadger for undock duels, amiright? Crystals are acceptable in this. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5499
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:35:00 -
[4228] - Quote
I had a Battlebadger before they nerfed the name (and slot layout). I think now the only viable battle indy is the Itty V. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
4358
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:41:00 -
[4229] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:I had a Battlebadger before they nerfed the name (and slot layout). I think now the only viable battle indy is the Itty V. [Iteron Mark V, Never not Crystals] Small Armor Repairer II Small Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400 10MN Afterburner II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Light Neutron Blaster II, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-Explosive Pump II Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II Medium Nanobot Accelerator II
Nope.
The Nereus can also be quite effective. I saw one take down a battleship in Amarr a few weeks ago but for the life of me can't remember who it was, or the specifics of the KM. I know that particular one was fit with neuts though, and I've seen a few other Nereus' fit for PVP and they can be pretty vicious, especially with the drones. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1679
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:43:00 -
[4230] - Quote
You know a good idea was raised in this thread, somewhere in the mishmash of shiptoasting and good points, that might change the game in interesting ways.
What if you had to call CONCORD?
Example scenario:
- A miner is sitting in a belt - a Catalyst warps in and begins DPSing him illegally.
- The CONCORD timer starts, appropriate to the CONCORD response time of that system (let's say 30 seconds).
- The miner gets a pop-up: "Send distress signal? Y/N" with the timer counting down from 30. During this time the Catalysts warp engines are disabled.
- The miner now has the option - Y, in which case CONCORD almost immediately spawns, or N, in which case CONCORD doesn't apply.
- If the timer counts to 0 with no response, or if the target shoots back, CONCORD doesn't apply, and the Catalysts warp engines go back online.
- If the target dies before a response or 0 timer, warp engines go back online. If, however, the Catalyst pilot pods the target before 0 timer, CONCORD issues a mandated response, killing the Catalyst.
- If no CONCORD, the Catalyst pilot takes a sec hit, and goes criminal, but can dock up after.
This would really punish AFKness in space and make criminal activities more interesting. It would make HiSec a more "seat of your pants" experience but without nerfing CONCORD into uselessness. Epic Space Cat |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 157 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |