Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 10:46:00 -
[661] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0. Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself. Trigger: manual activation. Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds. NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.
First: Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game") Second: Gimme an alt (or 5) in a newb ship and I'll be abusing the hell out of this. Even ignoring the hilarious abuse guaranteed to come from your ridiculous magic invulnerability button, it's entirely unnecessary. Please, tell me how would you abuse the idea, I may have overlooked something. By using it to make my ship invulnerable in any number of situations where invulnerability is useful. Now, go ahead and answer my question: Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game")
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win. The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12885
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 10:49:00 -
[662] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.
You honestly think a fleet shouldn't be able to kill one semi afk guy with no tank or situational awareness? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20583
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 10:52:00 -
[663] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Cancel Align NOW wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Use conditions: system security must be above 0.5. Player security status must be above 0.0. Trigger condition: someone has locked the player, has opened fire on him and has triggered a criminal flag on himself. Trigger: manual activation. Environmental effects: 99.9% resists to player. Any player who earns a criminal flag after attacking the player is 100% scrambled. Effects last for 10 seconds. NPC spawn (RT-1 seconds after activation, where RT = CONCORD response time): FoF mines. One mine is spawned for each agressor and inflicts 150,000 alpha damage on it. The subsequent CONCORD spawn will wipe any survivors.
First: Why should a single pilot have an item that requires no effort whatsoever to use which gives them a guaranteed win against an organized group of 10+ pilots specifically kitted out to beat them? (being at your keyboard isn't "effort" it's "playing the game") Second: Gimme an alt (or 5) in a newb ship and I'll be abusing the hell out of this. Even ignoring the hilarious abuse guaranteed to come from your ridiculous magic invulnerability button, it's entirely unnecessary. Please, tell me how would you abuse the idea, I may have overlooked something. I log in with x number of alts and position them on a pipe gate, I use alt 1 (in an imparior) to attack alt 2 in a tornado. Alt 2 now has a gank machine with 99% resists ready to hit anything it can alpha until concord arrive. Safeguard to loophole 1: sequence is averted and effects are cancelled if the target gains a criminal flag. You do know that you can blap people without gaining a criminal flag right?
You're idea is terrible, exploitable, brings no value to the game and falls under the auspices of Malcanis' law.
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. |
Dave Stark
6786
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 10:53:00 -
[664] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered?
this takes stupidity to a whole new level. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 10:57:00 -
[665] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.
You honestly think a fleet shouldn't be able to kill one semi afk guy with no tank or situational awareness?
If he can press the button before being dead, then he was not semi-afk nor lacked situational awareness... and if the fleet can't kill a guy semi-afk and no idea of what's going on before he can hit the button, well... how's that the guy's fault?
But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
4473
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:01:00 -
[666] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.
You honestly think a fleet shouldn't be able to kill one semi afk guy with no tank or situational awareness? If he can press the button before being dead, then he was not semi-afk nor lacked situational awareness... and if the fleet can't kill a guy semi-afk and no idea of what's going on before he can hit the button, well... how's that the guy's fault? But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? Are you drunk? =][= |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12889
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:03:00 -
[667] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.
You honestly think a fleet shouldn't be able to kill one semi afk guy with no tank or situational awareness? If he can press the button before being dead, then he was not semi-afk nor lacked situational awareness... and if the fleet can't kill a guy semi-afk and no idea of what's going on before he can hit the button, well... how's that the guy's fault? But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer?
Because the other ganker put in more planning and effort than the "victim".
Your plan would screw up a lot of fleets doing other activities just so little Jimmy can run around with an I win mod. Hell I used to pvp in haulers, I have tanked small fleets with them and driven them off grid. What you want is a fail safe I win mod that will 100% protect you from entire fleets. No, you can have that overpowered monstrosity. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:03:00 -
[668] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? this takes stupidity to a whole new level.
OK, you called me stupid, YOU WIN!
(Now answer, why should outnumbering be a failproof tactic?) The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20585
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:04:00 -
[669] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? I'll bite.
Firstly because one guy is always going to be outnumbered by more than one guy, it's the pretty much the definition of the word outnumber (-îa-èt-ên-îmb+Ö) vb 1. (tr) to exceed in number
Secondly because nothing is 100% guaranteed in Eve, including safety.
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. |
Dave Stark
6789
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:10:00 -
[670] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? this takes stupidity to a whole new level. OK, you called me stupid, YOU WIN! (Now answer, why should outnumbering be a failproof tactic?)
actually, I didn't call you stupid.
if, all other things being equal, the n+1 force can't beat 1 man, that means nobody will ever lose their ship. now, take one second to consider the implication of no ships ever being lost in eve from this point on. please tell me you see why your point is monumentally terrible? |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:11:00 -
[671] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Because he paid a price for that privilege. I was thinking of some 500 million ISK per shot. Maybe less, maybe more. That could be debated.
But, to your question: Why should someone lose his ship just because he's been outnumbered? Specially since he can be outnumbered by someone whose only effort was to buy ISBoxer and pay several accounts to CCP, which is very literally a way to pay for win.
You honestly think a fleet shouldn't be able to kill one semi afk guy with no tank or situational awareness? If he can press the button before being dead, then he was not semi-afk nor lacked situational awareness... and if the fleet can't kill a guy semi-afk and no idea of what's going on before he can hit the button, well... how's that the guy's fault? But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? Because the other ganker put in more planning and effort than the "victim". Your plan would screw up a lot of fleets doing other activities just so little Jimmy can run around with an I win mod. Hell I used to pvp in haulers, I have tanked small fleets with them and driven them off grid. What you want is a fail safe I win mod that will 100% protect you from entire fleets. No, you can have that overpowered monstrosity.
If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first. That will render the button useless as you will not get a criminal flag for attacking him. And who knows -maybe at 500 million a pop, neutral jimmy just may prefer to lose his ship and let CONCORD deal with you for free, authomatically and completely fail-safely. The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12892
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:14:00 -
[672] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first.
Oh hey this guy has 300 mil in an untanked frigate, I'll pirate this ship. *clicks wardec, you have 24 hours to wait* Oh wait he docked 23 hours and 59 minutes before I could engage...
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: That will render the button useless as you will not get a criminal flag for attacking him. And who knows -maybe at 500 million a pop, neutral jimmy just may prefer to lose his ship and let CONCORD deal with you for free, authomatically and completely fail-safely.
You just killed the entire pirate profession and made NPC hauling 100% safe. You broke EVE badly. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
6789
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:15:00 -
[673] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first.
Oh hey this guy has 300 mil in an untanked frigate, I'll pirate this ship. *clicks wardec, you have 24 hours to wait* Oh wait he docked 23 hours and 59 minutes before I could engage...
wrong. you failed to wardec little jimmy because he's in the NPC corp. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1107
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:18:00 -
[674] - Quote
"To be able to kill a target you must wardec them, which coupled with the nerfing of wardecs will ultimately result in the extinction of your playstyle. This will be the sixth mmo we have destroyed, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."
Exceedingly stupid thread, 10/10, would lose faith in humanity over again. [witty image] - Stream |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:20:00 -
[675] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? I'll bite. Firstly because one ship is always going to be outnumbered by more than one ship, regardless of the mechanism of providing those numbers; it's the pretty much the definition of the word outnumber (-îa-èt-ên-îmb+Ö) vb 1. (tr) to exceed in number Secondly because nothing, except getting blapped by Concord for certain offences in highsec, is 100% guaranteed in Eve, including safety. Nor should it be. If you want guaranteed safety, you're playing the wrong game.
If you read carefully, and understood what I wrote, you will notice how the system I proposed just doubles that of CONCORD, but with even less power.
It is not authomatic; it will not oneshot some ships; it will not destroy pods; it costs a lot of money to use; and it will not be of use in any situation where the agressors would not die to CONCORD just one second later.
The only advantage is that the resist guarantees the survival of the prey if he can press the button fast enough. Yet it's not a "I win" button, rather a "I survive" button.
And yet a second gank fleet could alpha the victim even with CONCORD around... The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9413
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:21:00 -
[676] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first.
No.
Not just no, but **** no. You do not get to just eliminate other methods of PvP, to leave the single most ineffective one remaining.
God, the entitlement is sickening. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1107
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:25:00 -
[677] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:It is not authomatic; Spoken like a true bot-aspirant; the world breaks down into the black and white of afk and not, and anything which requires the immense burden of actually being at the keyboard represents the highest mastery of internet spaceships. [witty image] - Stream |
Luukje
The Phoenix Rising
23
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:27:00 -
[678] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Not sure if you have been following, but I suggested that gank victims get 60 seconds of immunity from bumping so they can fly off. In other words, I can render my Freighter perfectly safe by shooting it with a noobship. Why should someone shooting you make you suddenly incorporeal? Again, Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Remember, this is a legal system where vigilante retribution is legal, mass murder of non-capsuleers is either ignored or encouraged, etc. Not sure what "safe" means - the invulnerability would start once CONCORD arrives, at which point your ship is supposed to be "safe." (note that you could still be shot). And the fact that bumping is not in general a crime does not mean that when bumping is used to achieve the exact same effect as warp scrambling (which is, and everyone agrees should be a crime), that it should not be treated as a crime.
bumping =/= scrambling. YOUR inability to play the game makes you see it as such, but believe me there are TONS of ways to prevent you getting in that spot in the first place, and if you do get bumped, there are still numerous ways to get urself safe, though these require you to think logically and use ur brain; something allot of the carebears refuse to do as they want handholding levels of safety. seriously, go play my little pony adventures if you really want to make high sec into the handholding place you want it to be. CCP are very clear; youre never 100% safe, however if you use the tools you've been given you could be pretty damn safe to the level where ganking wouldnt be all that viable. its the lazy/bad/dumb people we thrive on, not the ones with a brain. |
Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
675
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:27:00 -
[679] - Quote
Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat.
This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10.
They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake. |
Dave Stark
6793
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:28:00 -
[680] - Quote
Belt Scout wrote:Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat. This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10.
the problem is, you have to take the bait lest CCP actually start considering some of these delusions. |
|
Pepper Swift
The Vendunari End of Life
33951
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:29:00 -
[681] - Quote
Why are we still discusion this tropic When life gives you melons you might be-ádyslexic. Racial clothing on any character? Yes please
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9414
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:30:00 -
[682] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Belt Scout wrote:Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat. This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10. the problem is, you have to take the bait lest CCP actually start considering some of these delusions.
Not only that, but when you have "trolled" so well that people can't tell the difference between the trolling and the genuine shitposting, who are actually trolling?
Never go full ******. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12895
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:31:00 -
[683] - Quote
Pepper Swift wrote:Why are we still discusion this tropic
I know right? Anti suicide ganking agitators are like a cancer of EVE. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20586
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:32:00 -
[684] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? I'll bite. Firstly because one ship is always going to be outnumbered by more than one ship, regardless of the mechanism of providing those numbers; it's the pretty much the definition of the word outnumber (-îa-èt-ên-îmb+Ö) vb 1. (tr) to exceed in number Secondly because nothing, except getting blapped by Concord for certain offences in highsec, is 100% guaranteed in Eve, including safety. Nor should it be. If you want guaranteed safety, you're playing the wrong game. If you read carefully, and understood what I wrote, you will notice how the system I proposed just doubles that of CONCORD, but with even less power. It is not authomatic; it will not oneshot some ships; it will not destroy pods; it costs a lot of money to use; and it will not be of use in any situation where the agressors would not die to CONCORD just one second later. The only advantage is that the resist guarantees the survival of the prey if he can press the button fast enough. Yet it's not a "I win" button, rather a "I survive" button. And yet a second gank fleet could alpha the victim even with CONCORD around... So it's ISK tanking under the guise of press butan, receive a temporary Polaris resist profile? No, just no. 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. |
Nitchiu
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:33:00 -
[685] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:The only advantage is that the resist guarantees the survival of the prey if he can press the button fast enough. Yet it's not a "I win" button, rather a "I survive" button. And yet a second gank fleet could alpha the victim even with CONCORD around...
In Eve I survive is the definition of I win.
Now here's a couple of scenarios where your idea fails.
1.) I have wardecced a corp. I get an alt to attack me getting the I win button then proceed to kill my war target in a completly unpreventable way.
2.) I shoot myself with an alt. Press button steal someone's can or loot someone's wreck from a gank. I am invulnerable to those who would try to stop me.
And yes you could find solutions to those issues but you would cause more and more and make the game even more confusing for those poor newbies who can't figure out how to put a tank on a freighter. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12895
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:33:00 -
[686] - Quote
Belt Scout wrote:Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat. This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10.
We have learned that you must beat down every bad idea, no matter how stupid, lest CCP take it seriously. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Luukje
The Phoenix Rising
23
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:35:00 -
[687] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:But i will reverse your special case question: why should someone die after tanking to 100% of his ship capability, stay 100% aware and YET be outnumbered by a guy with a ISBOxer? I'll bite. Firstly because one ship is always going to be outnumbered by more than one ship, regardless of the mechanism of providing those numbers; it's the pretty much the definition of the word outnumber (-îa-èt-ên-îmb+Ö) vb 1. (tr) to exceed in number Secondly because nothing, except getting blapped by Concord for certain offences in highsec, is 100% guaranteed in Eve, including safety. Nor should it be. If you want guaranteed safety, you're playing the wrong game. If you read carefully, and understood what I wrote, you will notice how the system I proposed just doubles that of CONCORD, but with even less power. It is not authomatic; it will not oneshot some ships; it will not destroy pods; it costs a lot of money to use; and it will not be of use in any situation where the agressors would not die to CONCORD just one second later. The only advantage is that the resist guarantees the survival of the prey if he can press the button fast enough. Yet it's not a "I win" button, rather a "I survive" button. And yet a second gank fleet could alpha the victim even with CONCORD around...
seriously, someone who lets himself get bumped deserves to be ******* shot into pieces. youre wanting an i-win button for people who are shite at the game. STAPH IT YOU FOOL.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:36:00 -
[688] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
If you want to catch litle jimmy, wardec him first.
Oh hey this guy has 300 mil in an untanked frigate, I'll pirate this ship. *clicks wardec, you have 24 hours to wait* Oh wait he docked 23 hours and 59 minutes before I could engage... Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: That will render the button useless as you will not get a criminal flag for attacking him. And who knows -maybe at 500 million a pop, neutral jimmy just may prefer to lose his ship and let CONCORD deal with you for free, authomatically and completely fail-safely.
You just killed the entire pirate profession and made NPC hauling 100% safe. You broke EVE badly.
Why? The only difference with CONCORD is that the victim may actually survive the first attack. A second fleet still can alpha him right under the noses of CONCORD.
And then, back to where this whole discussion started:
Complete and unavoidable waste of your effort caused by the action of the adversary should be a possibility both for agressors and defenders. So far, only the defenders take that chance. As I said above, that's OK with CCP and they will not do anything to change the game, so you all can rest assured that I am just wasting my time and effort. The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
675
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:40:00 -
[689] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Belt Scout wrote:Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat. This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10. We have learned that you must beat down every bad idea, no matter how stupid, lest CCP take it seriously.
Yeah, you're def right about this. Our game gets broken for all the wrong reasons when these things slip under the radar.
.
They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3852
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:56:00 -
[690] - Quote
Belt Scout wrote:Wow guys. Not only did you all take the bait, you also gulped down the line, the fishing pole, and half of the boat. This is a perfect example of trolling at it's finest. Good job Indahmawar Fazmarai. 12/10. nope. genuine carebear. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |