Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Mag's
the united
18908
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:45:05 -
[421] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:What are you even talking about now. Your points are unraveling and becoming desperate. Are they? I'll leave this here for you.
Annette Nolen wrote:I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe).
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:48:18 -
[422] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what? Yeah can we stop dancing around this please? We all know what the difference is; the final cut per actual person involved (e.g. the human at the keyboard). One person using three accounts only has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough to warrant ONE PERSON involved. A fleet has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough for EACH PERSON involved. But let's boil it down even further so we can approach this simplistically. Let's assume ALL ganks are done by one perfectly rational multiboxing human. Traditional freighter gank: 1 bumper + (14 or more gank pilots, depending) = 15 accounts to PLEX from the profit Hyperdunk: 1 bumper + 1 bowhead/orca pilot + 1 gank pilot = 3 accounts to PLEX from the profit Provided the hyperdunker is able to gank at least once for every five ganks done the traditional way, they will come out even or on top in terms of profit per account. The primary limitation on traditional ganking is not the time to gank, it's the GCC, so while a hyperdunker is not going to gank as frequently as a traditional ganker, they are still very likely going to gank at better than a 1 to 5 rate. Net effect? Value of a ship worth ganking just got lower. For the record, I have no problem with this. I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe). But that doesn't invalidate the concerns raised by the above math. (EDIT: I forgot to spell it out so in case it's not clear, profit is unchanged in either scenario; drop rates are the same and number of cats/material cost to gank is identical or nearly so -- yes this is a slight oversimplification but the addition of one or two cats to deal with passive shield regen on a hyperdunk is balanced by the traditional method likewise requiring more cats than strictly necessary unless you want to borderline fail a bunch of ganks with 3 hull HP remaining on target).
I get the value calculations that have to go into the decision to gank a freighter, and if the gank is strictly for profit, the calculations are valid.
That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here.
Also there are more reasons to gank, outside of ganking for profit, which im sure you are aware of.
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
73
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:54:27 -
[423] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here.
Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) |
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:03:53 -
[424] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Alli Ginthur wrote:That said, my comment was in response to being told that its now cheaper to gank, when the exact same numbers of ships are needed using either gank method, so taking that snippet out of context makes it seem you're trying to be a bit dishonest here. Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :)
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:I'm okay with this if it comes with a dessie nerf so strong that gankers will be forced to use tier 3. That way they are risking something too, and not just reaping a guaranteed profit. See thats the thing. I give mad props to ganker fleets who can organize 10 Tornados or Talos and can pop a hauler the right way. Those guys have to set up, scan out and determine the risk/reward of the gank. But using Cats, or one guy using Cats that will at most cost him 50mil and able to take down anything in the game that can't fight back is insane. There is no risk, because the character is already -10 and throw away and the isk is minuscule. And the difference between one guy using the 50mil of catalysts and the fleet using 50mil of catalysts is... what?
As you can see from the whole conversation, they were literally talking about material cost.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:05:57 -
[425] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) If that's what they mean then that's what they say. It's not particularly difficult to say GÇ£it's easier to gank for (individual) profitGÇ¥, at which point you'd at least have the beginnings of a leg to stand on, rather than say GÇ£it's cheaper to gankGÇ¥, which is blatantly and categorically untrue.
^^^ And as mentioned, it is often clear that they don't talk about profit, but about actual cost.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:08:44 -
[426] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Annette Nolen wrote:Well I think it's being ... disingenuous... to pretend that we aren't all aware that people saying "cheaper to gank" really mean "the breakeven/profit point for accounts involved has been lowered", which has a very real effect on target selection. Pretending to think they really meant the actual material cost of ganking has gone down is more fun to troll with I'm sure, but doesn't actually advance the conversation forward much :) If that's what they mean then that's what they say. It's not particularly difficult to say GÇ£it's easier to gank for (individual) profitGÇ¥, at which point you'd at least have the beginnings of a leg to stand on, rather than say GÇ£it's cheaper to gankGÇ¥, which is blatantly and categorically untrue. ^^^ And as mentioned, it is often clear that they don't talk about profit, but about actual cost.
I do believe I said that the difference between cats and tornados was how much the recovery cost was... I said there was little risk using cats because it was cheaper. The reason the risk is lower is because you can fail to gank a few times and still recover your costs.
But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:13:55 -
[427] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread.
It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more).
Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:17:56 -
[428] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you.
Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?!
What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:21:41 -
[429] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! If the shoe fits. You keep accusing me of your mistakes. There's no better way of describing without bringing in some rather disturbing implications about dissociative disorders.
Quote:What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. GǪand what the rest of us are pointing out is that the cost is the same using this tactic compared to piling the same amount of ships into a fleet. Trying to suggest that ganking has become cheaper is outright wrong, no matter how much you squirm.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Alli Ginthur
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:23:25 -
[430] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit.
Well... the goalposts were here a second ago... whered they go? Oh? Clear out in left field now?
Cant even own up to you talking directly about ship cost, when your words are quoted a few posts ago? And you're calling Tippia the troll? Yeesh... |
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:24:34 -
[431] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! If the shoe fits. You keep accusing me of your mistakes. There's no better way of describing without bringing in some rather disturbing implications about dissociative disorders. Quote:What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. GǪand what the rest of us are pointing out is that the cost is the same using this tactic compared to piling the same amount of ships into a fleet. Trying to suggest that ganking has become cheaper is outright wrong, no matter how much you squirm.
But no one claimed the actual total cost of ganking was cheaper. No one. Again, the cost of risk, the split profit, the actual reward were all mentioned. If someone used the term Cost, they were not talking about total value. I even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats.
Your natural defense for being picked apart is to pull in dissociative disorders, of which you probably know nothing about. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:25:50 -
[432] - Quote
Alli Ginthur wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:Tippia wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:I do believe I said You are not relevant to this particular discussion. You are not the main authority on or a generalisation of the use of GÇ£costGÇ¥ throughout the thread. It has been said multiple times that this tactic makes it cheaper to gank. That is blatantly and categorically untrue, since the same number of ships (or more) are required, and the cost the same as they ever did (or more). Quote:But like Nolen said, you would rather troll than have a real discussion. Like I said, you are confusing me with you. Hilarious... the ol' I am rubber and you're glue line?! What Nolen said, albeit more beautifully than me, was that it is more profitable to gank as one guy with 50m in cats because it is split one way. As an extension of that costs are offset by the increased singular split profit. Well... the goalposts were here a second ago... whered they go? Oh? Clear out in left field now? Cant even own up to you talking directly about ship cost, when your words are quoted a few posts ago? And you're calling Tippia the troll? Yeesh...
goalposts... my god. I did talk about ship costs, in terms that 50mil in cats can be used to gank. I never claimed, nor has anyone else that 50mil is less than it was before whatever goal you are setting here. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24878
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:36:55 -
[433] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:But no one claimed the actual total cost of ganking was cheaper. No one. Incorrect. Lucas has claimed it multiple times. Anthar stated it outright. Oh, and you did. You've consistently tried to push a far lower price of a gank than is the reality.
Quote:Again, the cost of risk, the split profit, the actual reward were all mentioned. GǪas were the actual cost of the ships being used, as if they somehow got cheaper or fewer through the magic touch of a GM statement.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
475
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:52:03 -
[434] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a triple bulkheaded freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter.
Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:02:52 -
[435] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage.
680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:07:54 -
[436] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage. 680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. Those figures are for overheated guns and refer to specialised fits that have zero utility beyond pumping out a shitton of DPS and are being flown by a max skilled pilot, also bear in mind the design parameters of destroyers, which is that of cheap DPS platforms; the clue is in the name of the ship class.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
45
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:13:04 -
[437] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Zendon Taredi wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: even went as far as to say 50mil in cats... I didn't say it was suddenly 40mil in cats now, or 10mil in cats. Where are you getting this 50M figure from? Because you sure as hell aren't ganking a freighter with 5 T2 fitted Catalysts or 25 T1 fitted Catalysts for that matter, regardless of the technique that's being used to gank. Quote:And a T2 fit Cat costs 4x as much as a T1... but only does 20% more damage. So it doesn't take an economics major to figure out the Maths here. You need to recheck your maths, with a maxed skilled pilot a T1 fitted Cat costing 2M does just under 420DPS without implants and a T2 fitted Cat costing 8M does 680DPS+ without implants; that's considerably more than a 20% increase in damage. 680 dps from a 8m ship is hysterical. Should be nerfed to 300ish. Those figures are for overheated guns and refer to specialised fits that have zero utility beyond pumping out a shitton of DPS and are being flown by a max skilled pilot, also bear in mind the design parameters of destroyers, which is that of cheap DPS platforms; the clue is in the name of the ship class.
No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
|
Alana Charen-Teng
The Stars Like Dust
496
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:16:12 -
[438] - Quote
I still think it should be called "Globbyganking" ! |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14712
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:22:11 -
[439] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
Nothing gives you 4x the DPS for 4x the cost.
The best part about the t2 cat is the irony in that it is profitable to gank.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:26:21 -
[440] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:No... named T1 fit is 423 dps with CN anti... unheated.
Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship...
Using meta 4 guns bumps the price to between 3.7M and 10M, the only meta 3 gun that gets close to your figure bumps the price up to 3.7M, seeing as we're talking about a 2M isk fit would you care to try again?
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24881
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:31:36 -
[441] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote:Yes you are right, 20% was an exaggeration, but you still aren't getting 4x the damage from the fit that is 4x more expensive. 423 dps from a 2mil ship... This is how all upscaling in EVE works: marginal improvement for exponential costs.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11535
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:47:58 -
[442] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:I still think it should be called "Globbyganking" !
When asked about it on reddit, globby said it should be called "globbing".
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Freir9o785tu
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:03:36 -
[443] - Quote
Origionally starting to play this game and learning about HighSec as a viable option for game play I saw this as my style of play. I viewed this much like a sports team would have a Jr and Sr group of players. To be more relevant to games in general we will say that typically games have a PVP and Non-PVP (blue/green/newb) server.
Grant it this mechanic could have been introduced at any time when all the needed parts were part of the game. Typically when someone discovers a loop hole in the game mechanics that hole is subsequently plugged to avoid future abuse of the loop hole. In EVE they don't refer to them as loop holes, but rather they refer to them as "Emergent Gaming" or something to that effect. I've never been one to play on PVP servers. I'm sure I wouldn't be the first to say that in general I suck at games that require you enter some sort of entanglement with another player. Be the game Chess or EVE Online. As a freighter pilot I have a biased opinion in regards to Hyperdunking as it has been dubbed.
With that said.....EVE being the sandbox game that it is with one server to rule them all so to speak.....everything that happens in EVE no matter how big or small has a large impact when you view every small thing and large thing together to make up the whole of EVE. When EVE started it was basically an operating system. Everything you see before you now is the result of players from all parts of the world working as a collectively, deviant, cooperative pilot in some shape form or fashion. Everyone has their own end game. For some the end game is the Industry & trade, Player vs Enemy, and Player vs Player. Resources have been constantly accruing. Everything has had it's opposite. For Miners there is refining which causes a loss in minerals, for minerals there is material efficiency, for couriers there is combat. For combat there is stations. This is of course a matter of perspective and not all inclusive.
Miners have been run by Bots for as long as I can remember. Not all of them mind you, but some of them. Ganking keeps those bots on their toes and reduces the flow of incoming resources to the market so players who are legitimately mining without the assistance of an AI playing your character can profit from what they earn. But at the same time you could consider that because of those bot miners the price of minerals is lower, which will either increase profits for production, reduce the price for the end product, which reduces the price for gank ships which increases the likely hood that someone will get concorded 30 times to blow up the toy you've been flying in highsec without concern for 4 years without getting so much as a dent on your ship. HighSec in a way has been a contradiction to game of EVE and the ultimate destruction of materials used to craft a ship that is now nothing more than salvage. Trillions of isk floating between one regional hub and another that has for the most part gone with little concern for their safety. But at the same time despite thinking this could effectively alter the price of the base product to a higher number, it could encourage more competition in local systems where running a freighter would be limited to short range transport as opposed to 30 or more jumps being the norm. This implies that even an empty freighter could turn a profit if ganked.
A defenseless ship regardless of cargo being the job of one pilot to operate could become the career for another to destroy. It could quite honestly be a really profitable business. Specifically because it would be profitable when empty....but who really flies a freighter empty? I mean perhaps fly it to the pickup location such as jita....but 9 out of 10 chance it will have quite a large cargo inside of it as well. An already expensive ship will be getting blown up more often, which will increase the demand for them (or lower it depending on the sociological reaction to hyperdunking) which may overwhelm current manufacturing causing a shortage in freighters. Which will cause people to buy out the lower priced ones faster, increased "Market PVP" on the buy orders for freighters. Which will raise the cost, and thus the profit of hyperdunking.
The implications are endless. It is all a matter of cause and effect on a micro-economical level. Some pilots may be very serious about ending their subscriptions. Which will have an economic impact on CCP. But how many people have been like "Screw this I'm not paying to gang raped" and they still log in today? Maybe if this is so profitable I'll give a whirl :-) Which will be contributing to my creation of freighters, thus sale of freighters, thus it would be a win win situation for me.....except I'd have to park the long distant trips for fear of actually having to engage in something other than conversation with another player. |
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
424
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:22:05 -
[444] - Quote
I find it interesting how Tippia is being so vocal about defending hyperdunking. I think itGÇÖs to fill the forum to save hyperdunking from being removed. Are you sure youGÇÖre not being paid Tippia? |
J'Poll
Green Skull LLC
5716
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:28:08 -
[445] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Tippia wrote: Never. Podding is a 100% player activity and there's no reason for NPCs to ever do it.
Just keep believing that... I'll keep believing it until there's a reason for NPCs to do it. Until then, it's pointless faff, and even after that, it's still nothing CONCORD has any business doing.
Aah look "Mr. I'm ALWAYS right and you are wrong" aka Tippia has returned.
Instead of looking dumb, go play EVE and you would have known we already have podding NPCs called 'Seekers'
Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy
Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded
Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
|
Paranoid Loyd
3668
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:29:10 -
[446] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:I find it interesting how Tippia is being so vocal about defending hyperdunking. I think itGÇÖs to fill the forum to save hyperdunking from being removed. Are you sure youGÇÖre not being paid Tippia? She is not defending hyperdunking, she is defending logic and reason. The protector of logic and reason does not require payment.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
TheInternet TweepsOnline TheInternet
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:35:38 -
[447] - Quote
Reserved |
Daemon Ceed
Relentless Terrorism Dead Terrorists
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:46:36 -
[448] - Quote
The ocean of tears in this thread is so vast that I could swim in it for days and never see land. From the bottom of my cold piratey heart, thank you!
PS: PM me if you need an escort for your freighter or Bowhead filled with billions worth of stuff. I'll make sure you get to your destination safely.
The Sandbox = Play however the hell you want.
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
19607
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:54:51 -
[449] - Quote
Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
Mag's
the united
18917
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 23:56:58 -
[450] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Are we even talking about 'hyperdunking' anymore?
It seems the thread has de-evolved into 'Nerf gankers/Catalysts' thread # 2881773374 at this point....
'Just one more nerf and it'll be balanced.'
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |