Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20789
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:50:00 -
[541] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1) No, I don't subscribe to the concept of "isk tanking." What I do think is that there should be tools available to properly tank ships commensurate with their expense level. If my Machariel costs 3x as much as a T1 battleship, it would be reasonable to think that there are some fitting choices available to give me 3x the ehp. Instead, bigger ships tend to not have dps/ehp increases corresponding to their increased price tag. In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship. Why should 50 rookie ships with Civilian guns be able to blow up a well tanked Machariel? The system is weighted towards small ships, and lends itself to glass cannon suicide ganking. That is commonly known as isk tanking
Quote:2) Dedicated gank alts. These guys bother me, they have -10 sec status but are still able to function as gank alts in high sec unimpeded. All they need is a neutral scout to warp to. The gank alts tend to lose isk, lots of it, and need to be supported by other sources. They are not really "playing the game" they are just there to cause pandomium and try to stop other people from making isk. Generally the owner will just conduct normal activities on his main, so the -10 status of the gank alts doesn't impair his general gameplay with other characters. Sandbox, you don't seem to understand the concept.
I'll make it simple for you. You can try and play Eve in any way you choose, so can everybody else; some choose to play in a way that interferes in the way others want to play.
Quote:3. Risk aversion v. risk management - risk aversion is a description of utility functions, specifically that people try to avoid low probability high impact negative events. In Eve this would include things like losing a multibillion isk ship in highsec to suicide ganking. Risk management refers to the tools you use to optimize your behavior incorporation your risk preferences. Suicide gank alts not flying expensive ships is absolutely a form of risk aversion. They manage their risk aversion by flying cheap gank ships and not caring when they explode. That is risk management not risk aversion. Gankers manage their risks, most gankees do not.
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. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1347
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:53:00 -
[542] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I looked through all the responses - most were nonsensical and used strawman arguments. I thought about only responding to the well reasoned posts, but talking to myself isn't so useful. So briefly:
1) No, I don't subscribe to the concept of "isk tanking." What I do think is that there should be tools available to properly tank ships commensurate with their expense level. If my Machariel costs 3x as much as a T1 battleship, it would be reasonable to think that there are some fitting choices available to give me 3x the ehp. Instead, bigger ships tend to not have dps/ehp increases corresponding to their increased price tag. In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship. Why should 50 rookie ships with Civilian guns be able to blow up a well tanked Machariel? The system is weighted towards small ships, and lends itself to glass cannon suicide ganking.
Well, thankfully for eve, this is not the case.
Why? Because nobody would ever fly anything but battleships. That doesnt sound fun, it sounds like a cookie cutter game.
If you are so unhappy with the way this game works, why are you playing it? Your primary concern seems to be gankers. You know how to avoid that? MOVE OUT OF HISEC. There arent many gank-fit boats in low/null/wh. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Renegade Heart
Smack My Ship Up
178
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:08:00 -
[543] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship.
I remember warping into a player's mission, to steal their loot, and then they shot at me, but I then I killed their maelstrom with my mighty merlin. It was great fun! According to you, I probably wasn't even "playing the game"
I might be doing more of that thing again soon on my alt, because my main can't do that now being -10. I don't intend to rat up my sec on my main because I enjoy ganking too much. Consequences eh?
In general, I think most players in EvE would quit if CCP payed any attention to such nonsense as you are proposing. I don't even know why you are playing it to be honest, if you are fundamentally opposed to the game mechanics. Is it fun for you? |
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:10:00 -
[544] - Quote
Renegade Heart wrote:
This did cross my mind when I ganked the pod of a 9 minute old toon in Perimeter attempting to autopilot into Jita.
Tbh, most newer toons I come across and gank turn out to be alts from older players. Reminds me of that time that I ganked a 800m covetor.
"Very tough of you to gank newbies!" -"Ehm, that 2007 hauler char right next to you is not your alt then?" "Yes it's my alt but this toon is noob!" -*shakes head and closes convo*
Any 9 minute old toon that wants to get into Jita chances are it's a newly created alt going on a shopping trip. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
265
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:11:00 -
[545] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I looked through all the responses - most were nonsensical and used strawman arguments. I thought about only responding to the well reasoned posts, but talking to myself isn't so useful. So briefly:
1) No, I don't subscribe to the concept of "isk tanking." What I do think is that there should be tools available to properly tank ships commensurate with their expense level. If my Machariel costs 3x as much as a T1 battleship, it would be reasonable to think that there are some fitting choices available to give me 3x the ehp. Instead, bigger ships tend to not have dps/ehp increases corresponding to their increased price tag. In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship. Why should 50 rookie ships with Civilian guns be able to blow up a well tanked Machariel? The system is weighted towards small ships, and lends itself to glass cannon suicide ganking.
2) Dedicated gank alts. These guys bother me, they have -10 sec status but are still able to function as gank alts in high sec unimpeded. All they need is a neutral scout to warp to. The gank alts tend to lose isk, lots of it, and need to be supported by other sources. They are not really "playing the game" they are just there to cause pandomium and try to stop other people from making isk. Generally the owner will just conduct normal activities on his main, so the -10 status of the gank alts doesn't impair his general gameplay with other characters.
3. Risk aversion v. risk management - risk aversion is a description of utility functions, specifically that people try to avoid low probability high impact negative events. In Eve this would include things like losing a multibillion isk ship in highsec to suicide ganking. Risk management refers to the tools you use to optimize your behavior incorporation your risk preferences. Suicide gank alts not flying expensive ships is absolutely a form of risk aversion. They manage their risk aversion by flying cheap gank ships and not caring when they explode. They also manage it by having an SRP in place.
I think that answers all the relevent points raised. 1) Then we bring more ships and switch to Vexors, Brutixes or Thaloses. 2) I started with 1 bil ISK not even a year ago. All I did since then is ganking and bumping, my wallet is now at 12bil ISK. I only manufacture equipment I use to gank I don't sell this products on the market as I can barely produce as much as I need for myself. For the point with the scout alt, would it make a difference if the scout was another player and why? 3) Are you now blaming people for using the right tool for the right job? What would be the alternative, using expensive ships to do the same amount of damage? Is the opposite of "risk averse" now stupid? blaming people for optimize a strategy in a video game of all things is kinda silly, don't you think? the Code ALWAYS wins |
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:31:00 -
[546] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I looked through all the responses - most were nonsensical and used strawman arguments. I thought about only responding to the well reasoned posts, but talking to myself isn't so useful. So briefly:
1) No, I don't subscribe to the concept of "isk tanking." What I do think is that there should be tools available to properly tank ships commensurate with their expense level. If my Machariel costs 3x as much as a T1 battleship, it would be reasonable to think that there are some fitting choices available to give me 3x the ehp. Instead, bigger ships tend to not have dps/ehp increases corresponding to their increased price tag. In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship. Why should 50 rookie ships with Civilian guns be able to blow up a well tanked Machariel? The system is weighted towards small ships, and lends itself to glass cannon suicide ganking.
Well, tbh isk tanking does exist and you are doing it. If you use the blingiest model ship with the bingiest tank you WILL have significantly more EHP than a non faction T1 fitted variant of the vessel of your choice.
So in that sense, it pays to invest in more spensive stuff. HOWEVER, EHP does not scale linearly with the price of your toys. The main reason for this is that EVE is a free market and prices are mostly dictated by supply and demand. Supply of the ultimate bling stuff is rather low but since it is the best in the game there are always enough ppl that want it and want to pay the price premium that goes with it. They are willing to pay 100x as much for the module that will give them a 5% advantage on whatever. Why? For bragging rights, cuz they are collectors or simply because they are so filthy rich (ingame or even IRL so they can spend 2000$ on PLEX for a single ship) that they don't care for the price.
In a game where any ship can be destroyed that does come with some risks. Even if you could get your 3x EHP ppl would STILL gank you if you made it profitable for them. Hell, they might even kill you for a loss. Why? Well, for bragging rights, cuz they are collectors of leet killmails or simply because they are so filthy rich that they don't care for the price and just want to blow stuff up (which is the core of this game: blowing stuff up).
Edit: and ppl like you would STILL be whining that ganking was too easy and it should get just ONE last nerf.... |
Renegade Heart
Smack My Ship Up
178
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:35:00 -
[547] - Quote
Dirk Decibel wrote:Any 9 minute old toon that wants to get into Jita chances are it's a newly created alt going on a shopping trip.
Yeah I'll admit, I was hesitant to gank the player when I saw he was less than a day old, but autopiloting into Jita so early into his EvE career sealed his fate
I really doubt it was a true rookie. If he contacted me claiming to be a newbie, I'd have given him advise on how to prevent similar from occurring again, and perhaps even a little isk.
I had no contact, however I did mail him something about the dangers of autopiloting. If he was a true rookie, I feel I taught him a valuable lesson about how the game works. |
Trixie Lawless
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
61
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:40:00 -
[548] - Quote
Honestly Veers you just need to move to null.
When I first started playing this game I had the WRONG mindset of "GrrrrrGankersGrrrrr" Because the precious games I had played bred a wuss attitude. Then I slowly started accepting that ganking, thievery, and general chaos are an essential part if EVE. So I moved to null sec for PvP and friends. I prefer the fleets and small frigate roams over ganking.
You know what's different from us out in null taking out a domi or navy issue bling bs with a pack of frigs as opposed to a group of catalysts taking out your bling in hi sec?
The guy who gets ganked out in null isn't a sissy who goes and whines on the forums. That's the only difference.
Please Veers, EVEmature like I did and realize you are choosing to pay 15 a month for your dreaded hi sec priblems, and quit trying to insert more currburr into the game. |
Froggy Storm
Paragon Trust The Bastion
307
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:41:00 -
[549] - Quote
In light of the responses Mr Veers, and giving you the benefit of any doubt about being deliberately obtuse, the only logical suggestion would be that you should in fact be playing in NPC nul.
1) The risk reward (especially for mordus legion) is substantially higher than anything in high sec. There by making your own margins better. While still being at constant risk of attack from gankers.
2) The risk management for yourself is considerably better since all players there will attack you, and only with ships of value comniserate to your own. Thus you don't need to worry after who the spies are since all probes are hostile and require a response.
3) By using ships of value (specifically T3 cruisers) you have even more tools on your side for risk management in terms of cloak and nullifier to give you tools on your side. Making them virtually impossible to catch by normal means.
And finally it goes a very long way towards your own 'not playing the game' stawman sticking to yourself. |
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
441
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:01:00 -
[550] - Quote
I like how Veers posts basic negate his entire argument.
As for him moving to null... He was rejected by PL and that is his end game. The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5147
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:23:00 -
[551] - Quote
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909 wrote:I like how Veers posts basic negate his entire argument.
As for him moving to null... He was rejected by PL and that is his end game. Oh yeah, you just have to keep him talking for long enough and he commits Hara-kiri with his argument, you don't even need to lead him there, just apply pressure and wait. =]I[= |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:47:00 -
[552] - Quote
Geez...so many responses, so little content. If you guys could consolidate your posts into one or two mutual bullet points it would def make this easier.
Briefly -
1) Better tanking for more expensive ships would not make everyone fly battleships. In fact we already have this in nullsec - does everybody only fly titans? Simply put, it does not make sense that 20 cheap 10 mil gankalysts can destroy a perfectly fit Machariel in highsec before the police arrive on the scene. As far as CODE threatening to bring bigger ships - Good! That's exactly what should happen. Want to gank a Mach? Bring nados. Sure, it'll cost more, but it will also make the CODE folks more selective about who they gank. And no, I'm not moving to nullsec, I love highsec, I like my CONCORD allies, I like living in an area where there are consequences for criminal actions. And no, I was never rejected from PL. But, like Tora Bushido, like James 315, and like many others I am happy to call highsec my home, and to work to make it a better place.
2. Sandbox, sandbox, blah blah. The penalties for -10 sec status are arbitrarily chosen by CCP, and they can be arbitrarily changed. There is nothing sandbox about that. Come on.
3. Pointing out that the game mechanics let CODE gank expensive ships with cheap ones, and therefore avoid risk, is not complaining about CODE using the right tools. It's demonstrating a problematic aspect of the game mechanics.
And I Plex by the way, not pay cash, thanks. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5147
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:55:00 -
[553] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...so many responses, so little content. If you guys could consolidate your posts into one or two mutual bullet points it would def make this easier.
You don't get meaningful responses because
- You are belligerent
- you are wrong
- we don't actually have to prove you so, you do that yourself
- you want to kill eve (effectively)
How's that? =]I[= |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:58:00 -
[554] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...so many responses, so little content. If you guys could consolidate your posts into one or two mutual bullet points it would def make this easier.
You don't get meaningful responses because
- You are belligerent
- you are wrong
- we don't actually have to prove you so, you do that yourself
- you want to kill eve (effectively)
How's that?
Par from the course from you.....it makes it easier when there is no content so I don't need to analyze and respond. Now if you could get the other trolls to do the same...... |
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909
The Conference Elite CODE.
442
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:02:00 -
[555] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...I have many posts, yet so little content.
I fixed it for you. The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
442
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:02:00 -
[556] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...I have many posts, yet so little content.
I fixed it for you. The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:07:00 -
[557] - Quote
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...I have many posts, yet so little content. I fixed it for you.
Well, actually I properly analyzed the issues, and suggested specific things to fix them. The fact that you don't like my fixes, and the fact that they endanger your ability to cause cheap PEW PEW BAM EXPLOSION in highsec does not mean that there is no "content." It simply means that you don't like the content, much like I'm sure you didn't like other changes to suicide ganking that have happened over the last few years. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
266
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:09:00 -
[558] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Geez...I have many posts, yet so little content. I fixed it for you. Well, actually I properly analyzed the issues, and suggested specific things to fix them. The fact that you don't like my fixes, and the fact that they endanger your ability to cause cheap PEW PEW BAM EXPLOSION in highsec does not mean that there is no "content." It simply means that you don't like the content, much like I'm sure you didn't like other changes to suicide ganking that have happened over the last few years. You mean all that past changes that "fixed" suicide ganking?
Your ideas are not special, your ideas are as useless as all the ideas that came before. And there are like 10 different people here that try to tell you this. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:13:00 -
[559] - Quote
[quote=Ima Wreckyou]
It's like fixing a leaky pipe. You plug one hole and a new one pops up. Literally tens or hundreds of people sit around all day looking for new ways to beat the system and blow up expensive ships in highsec at minimal cost. CCP eventually reacts and closes down one loophole after the next. It's kind of like how the IRS manages the tax code. Part of our job is to help CCP keep on fixing. |
Paranoid Loyd
1966
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:13:00 -
[560] - Quote
Keep feeding him guys, that's exactly what he wants. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite |
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
266
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:19:00 -
[561] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: It's like fixing a leaky pipe. You plug one hole and a new one pops up. Literally tens or hundreds of people sit around all day looking for new ways to beat the system and blow up expensive ships in highsec at minimal cost. CCP eventually reacts and closes down one loophole after the next. It's kind of like how the IRS manages the tax code. Part of our job is to help CCP keep on fixing.
Define loophole. What is the final idea, no ganking in Highsec? That would probably be an easy fix. Just get rid of that red setting in the safety settings and you are done. Or is the idea to nerf ganking so much that it is virtually impossible and no one will ever attempt it? the Code ALWAYS wins |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:19:00 -
[562] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Keep feeding him guys, that's exactly what he wants.
Well, actually what I do want is for some of the folks here to take an honest and impartial view of things, consider what the OP said, and agree that the current treatment of -10 sec status players makes absolutely no sense. In no conceivable universe would the police react to career criminals with lame 15 minute timeouts. But hey, if you think that simple logic = trolling, be my guest, sir. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
266
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:21:00 -
[563] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Keep feeding him guys, that's exactly what he wants. the general idea is to feed him so much that he explodes.
Ignoring bad ideas did not work out in the past. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
266
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:25:00 -
[564] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Keep feeding him guys, that's exactly what he wants. Well, actually what I do want is for some of the folks here to take an honest and impartial view of things, consider what the OP said, and agree that the current treatment of -10 sec status players makes absolutely no sense. In no conceivable universe would the police react to career criminals with lame 15 minute timeouts. But hey, if you think that simple logic = trolling, be my guest, sir. but they do react and destory your ship even if you don't shoot something. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:26:00 -
[565] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: It's like fixing a leaky pipe. You plug one hole and a new one pops up. Literally tens or hundreds of people sit around all day looking for new ways to beat the system and blow up expensive ships in highsec at minimal cost. CCP eventually reacts and closes down one loophole after the next. It's kind of like how the IRS manages the tax code. Part of our job is to help CCP keep on fixing.
Define loophole. What is the final idea, no ganking in Highsec? That would probably be an easy fix. Just get rid of that red setting in the safety settings and you are done. Or is the idea to nerf ganking so much that it is virtually impossible and no one will ever attempt it?
Well in my view, at least, the amount of effort and isk expended to gank a properly tanked ship in highsec should scale with the size of the ship. So it should take more isk and effort to gank a Mach or Vindi than to gank a Maelstrom or Hurricane. I don't think that a gang of cheap Catalysts should be able to get the job done. I would like to see small turrets having minimal impact on large ships - so for example making it virtually impossible for frigs or dessies to gank battleships. Much like you would not see battleships able to kill a titan. It's not about getting rid of suicide ganking, its about making it take a proper amount of isk and effort. |
Trixie Lawless
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:32:00 -
[566] - Quote
Dude you don't properly analyze anything. It's like it is impossible for you simply say "this is the game I choose to play and it operates like this...".
I hate to call someone fail at gaming...but you are getting close buddy. Quit asking for tons of changes to the game. Adapt and enjoy your 15 a month, or find something else that makes you happy.
And as for the tanking discussion....yes, 10 or 12 dessies should be able to pop your bling BS. You know why? Because that's 10 or 12 people playing the game TOGETHER. Plus destroyer's are meant as high dps with low tank. Run with a crew of AF's if you want protection from the big bad gankers.
And quit telling people their arguments have no weight just because you don't agree. Just adapt to the game and have fun instead of trying to be that pickle faced aunt that always comes over for Thanksgiving and expects everything to be her way. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2255
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:40:00 -
[567] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:[quote=Veers Belvar] Define loophole. What is the final idea, no ganking in Highsec? That would probably be an easy fix. Just get rid of that red setting in the safety settings and you are done. Or is the idea to nerf ganking so much that it is virtually impossible and no one will ever attempt it?
True fact, CCP could shut down all highsec ganking if the wanted to. The code already exists in the safety settings, they'd just have to kludge in a way to prevent you from going "red" in highsec.
The same with "cheap destroyers blowing up expensive battleships", the code already exists in the titan limitations. You just take that code, flip it around so small ships do infinitesimal damage to larger ones, and roll it out.
CCP hasn't done it. They obviously agree with highsec ganking, and small cheap ships killing big expensive ones. It's one of those central ideas to EVE. They aren't going to implement "levels" that make you immune to those "under" you (Whelp, leveled up to flying battleships, no more risk from those pesky cruisers!).
For the resident carebears, don't fall into the mistake of thinking the game devs are limited in the same way players are. If CCP wanted something to stop happening in eve, if would flat stop happening, via exploit notice then patch. They wouldn't pussyfoot around with nerf here, nerf there, if they didn't want the mechanic to exist.
It's less a matter of "Those dastardly gankers foiled our perfect nerf again! than it is "How do we align gameplay so it fits within our core values as a company?" It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave |
Anal Canal
The Conference Elite CODE.
442
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:43:00 -
[568] - Quote
WORDS! LOUD NOISES!
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
CALDARI CITIZEN 14330909
The Conference Elite CODE.
444
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:43:00 -
[569] - Quote
WORDS! LOUD NOISES!
The Artist Formerly Known As AC.-á The-áterminal end of the digestive system.-á |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:56:00 -
[570] - Quote
Trixie Lawless wrote:Dude you don't properly analyze anything. It's like it is impossible for you simply say "this is the game I choose to play and it operates like this...".
I hate to call someone fail at gaming...but you are getting close buddy. Quit asking for tons of changes to the game. Adapt and enjoy your 15 a month, or find something else that makes you happy.
And as for the tanking discussion....yes, 10 or 12 dessies should be able to pop your bling BS. You know why? Because that's 10 or 12 people playing the game TOGETHER. Plus destroyer's are meant as high dps with low tank. Run with a crew of AF's if you want protection from the big bad gankers.
And quit telling people their arguments have no weight just because you don't agree. Just adapt to the game and have fun instead of trying to be that pickle faced aunt that always comes over for Thanksgiving and expects everything to be her way.
Lots of people ask for lots of changes to the game. James 315 ran for CSM on a platform of removing all L3 and L4 mission from highsec and forcing everyone into nullsec. CCP has consistently made it more difficult to suicide gank, and has given ships more fitting options to protect themselves. Eve is a lot less wild than it used to be, and in my view, at least, CCP is headed in the right direction. Make the costs of suicide ganking commensurate with the benefits, and you will see it used as a scalpel, not an axe.
And I do enjoy the game, and as already stated I don't pay 15 bucks a month for it. I do reserve the right to advocate for positive changes in the game, supported by the many highsec mission runners, miners, etc... who you and your allies so malign. It is their game too! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |