Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:57:30 -
[1] - Quote
Bringing back Mines has been spoken about but not properly discussed or proposed.
Limiting amount that can be placed, restricting security they can be placed in, setting them to self detonate after a timer expires, the distance they can be placed from structures, and spacing limitations, are all possible ways of making Mines practical to use without creating server clutter and allowing abuse.
The amount that can be placed should be limited per ship or possibly per system to deter abuse while still allowing practical and useful application.
Restricting security would be key to ensure they aren't abused like they were in the past. As it wouldent make much sense for empires to allow mines to be placed inside of their space by private corps or even by their own factions, it would be sensible to only allow them to be placed and used in Nullsec space only, and possibly, low sec even though it is technically empire owned, it is not policed.
A timer would prevent server clutter and lag, while allowing them to be used practically for ambush, defense, and gate camp. My proposal is to include a timer that, when it expires, self detonates the mines, I suggest 1 hour, though it could set for longer depending on the limited number that can be placed, they would also disappear at restart.
Distance placed should be outside the standard distances a player appears when they gate and undock, meaning, when they gate through, it shouldn't be possible for them to appear right on top on one, decloaking them and causing damage, and it shouldn't be possible for them to be placed or clustered, in front of stations for a person to undock right into destruction.
Damage should vary depending on the mine. This would of course call for various types to be created for various military application. There should be 4 types, as there are 4 types of resistance.
Spacing between them is necessary. I would suggest a minimum of 3000 meters from deployed mines, cargo cans, abandoned drones, deployable structures, ETC, as to allow maneuvering room for skilled pilots to avoid the mines, especially covert ops. However, 5000 meters would be more ideal and would still allow practical application. |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 23:44:20 -
[2] - Quote
*fleets of 500 show up and each dump 3 mines* *EVE dies*
No thanks to mines, too much of a resource hog. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 00:43:36 -
[3] - Quote
Although this is a possibility, however slim it may be. This thread was primarily about fixing the mechanic and making it possible to use them once more. Which I believe has been done thoroughly.
While I can see your point, I do not believe it is any more likely to add to clutter or especially kill EvE then all of the drones left, cans, deployable structures that do not disappear on restart or any of the rest of wrecks and everything else that abounds daily, as once again, it would have a timer.
A limit could be set and even the damage could be raised, as a limit of 3 mines at their current damage set would do almost nothing worth considering.
Maybe raising the damage to 100 or 150 per mine and setting the limit towards 1 or 2 per ship.
Even being able to deploy one would be an improvement from not having it at all.
Mine: Damage: 125. Spacing: 3,500 meters. Limit: 1 Per ship. Sec: Null security space only. Timer: 1 hour 15 minutes. Limitations: Non deployable within 20k of gate, 3,500 meters of other deployables. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
631
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:02:24 -
[4] - Quote
CCP doesn't do hard coded limits an issue. its more "gentlemen's agreement". In that its on the players to determine when its enough for say bubbles, cans, hell even pos mods. As overly excessive pos mods are known to slow down visuals and create lag.
If other side says you put up too much stuff....in goes the petition. And GM's determine if legit or just a whine.
Now you might say well ccp can make a hard cap happen. This too would generate lag. Lets have cap of 10. Lets have a 200 man fleet. Those first 10 mines dropped....now to keep up mine pressure you have 200 people worst case spamming the button. Server is now....
checking mines on the field determining max on field telling 200 people spamming mine drop no you can't do it player pressing button again
repeat this every server tick for as long as the fight lasts. per player on the field. And remember I looked at one side only....the other side is doing this too. |
Reynas Arthie
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:24:46 -
[5] - Quote
Make them a variant to bombs.......more of a dynamic tactical weapon
Same restrictions etc (null, AOE doesn't go off if it hits a gate/station etc)
Make it a high slot module (Mine layer II)
Give it say mag cap of 5 mines. Each mine say has 5km AOE. Once deployed the mine stays around for 10-15s then explodes.
Idea being you stick it on a fast frig or w/e then fly through your enemy group dropping mines. make it an anti drone/support weapon rather than a long term area denial weapon.
This way it doesn't become any more of a system hog than normal weapon systems but could potentially add so new tactics to fleet combat. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:28:26 -
[6] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:CCP doesn't do hard coded limits an issue. its more "gentlemen's agreement". In that its on the players to determine when its enough for say bubbles, cans, hell even pos mods. As overly excessive pos mods are known to slow down visuals and create lag.
If other side says you put up too much stuff....in goes the petition. And GM's determine if legit or just a whine.
Now you might say well ccp can make a hard cap happen. This too would generate lag. Lets have cap of 10. Lets have a 200 man fleet. Those first 10 mines dropped....now to keep up mine pressure you have 200 people worst case spamming the button. Server is now....
checking mines on the field determining max on field telling 200 people spamming mine drop no you can't do it player pressing button again
repeat this every server tick for as long as the fight lasts. per player on the field. And remember I looked at one side only....the other side is doing this too.
A hard cap simply implies a limit, and would not create lag, it would prevent it, how would it creat lag? Hard caps do exist in the game albeit rare. Loaded ammunition is one of them, one that is a must, and is realistic. Mines may not be a must but they are realistic, especially since technically ships are considered navy and mines have always been an asset of navel war.
Worst case scenario is not having a cap on mines, because it has been tried before and it was severely abused, with that in mind the mechanic needed tweaking, not annihilation. Capping distance objects can be placed from one another is as sensible as the number placed.
Telling 200 people they cant drop more then one mine is the same as telling them they cant launch more then one bomb at a time from one ship, launch more then one jetty can within 2 minutes, undock too quick after joining fleet, etc, the more ships you have, the more they can launch.
Capping it makes sense, is practical, useful, and would cause squads to use it together instead of separate, as squads are want to do... work together. Along with adding additional content and strategy, it would be realistic and applicable in real time scenarios. |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
375
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 06:22:11 -
[7] - Quote
So i warp in 255 of my closest friends and myself and seed your undock/pos shields/gate/whatever, i leave system or even if they are slaved to the ships have my fleet warp to a safe and eject ships, holla back to the staging system (or some friendly logi bros in carriers/bowheads) and pick up some more minelayers...
"hey guys lets undock to fight these asswipes" *EXPLODES IN A RAINBOWCOLORED FIREBALL*
They have been adequatly discussed...
NOW WHAT MIGHT BE COOL is some sort of smartbomb fitted mobile deployable... that should be less stressie on the server and if their resist profile is suitably crap you cant just perma firewall/pipebomb the enemies undock... |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
780
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 07:33:24 -
[8] - Quote
Mines were fixed, they were removed and it was good.
Apart form the server load (which a time won't solve as they will actually exist for that duration) I really feel that if you want to destroy someones ship you should at least have the decency to be on grid and actively making the attempt.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3364
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 09:36:40 -
[9] - Quote
With the restrictions you list on lifespan, distance from things and spacing, what situation do you actually see these used in? Can't undock camp, can't gatecamp, can't really bubblecamp, can't even blanket the area in front of a fleet.
What CAN you do with them? |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:36:43 -
[10] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:So i warp in 255 of my closest friends and myself and seed your undock/pos shields/gate/whatever, i leave system or even if they are slaved to the ships have my fleet warp to a safe and eject ships, holla back to the staging system (or some friendly logi bros in carriers/bowheads) and pick up some more minelayers...
"hey guys lets undock to fight these asswipes" *EXPLODES IN A RAINBOWCOLORED FIREBALL*
They have been adequatly discussed...
NOW WHAT MIGHT BE COOL is some sort of smartbomb fitted mobile deployable... that should be less stressie on the server and if their resist profile is suitably crap you cant just perma firewall/pipebomb the enemies undock...
Once again, in this extreme circumstance it would be limited to 10k outside stations or further, they could be shot/smartbombed or otherwise destroyed outside a POS which should be armed and can even be auto-targeted by guns (thanks for the idea), and 20k from any gate. In the event that hundreds of mines are not enough to cover a given area (wow) it would still take a considerable amount of time in relation to mines already placed. If you go to that extreme, the clock is ticking on the mines you place so you had best expect company.
The way I've presented it prevents your rainbow fireball outside stations and is less stressful on the server then mass dropping cargo cans, which last longer with no purpose. It would just be a massive waste of effort for misusing them. |
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:39:38 -
[11] - Quote
Samillian wrote:Mines were fixed, they were removed and it was good.
More seriously my main objection is that I really believe that if you want to destroy someones ship you should at least have the decency to be on grid and actively making the attempt, rather than covering an area in mines and siting in a bar in another system sipping mojitos and sniggering as the killmails come in.
Also as I recall server load was one of the major factors in there removal, could it be CCP has more idea of what causes major load on their servers than most of us and thats why they have never returned?
Mines weren't fixed, they are still in the game, but cannot be used.
If you believe what you said, then POS guns should have auto-target removed. Covering an area with mines, via what I presented, would last an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes.
No, the reason they never returned is no practical and efficient ideas were presented for their use. The abuse of mines in high sec was one of the primary reasons they were removed. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:43:24 -
[12] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:With the restrictions you list on lifespan, distance from things and spacing, what situation do you actually see these used in? Can't undock camp, can't gatecamp, can't really bubblecamp, can't even blanket the area in front of a fleet.
What CAN you do with them?
Gate camps, Wormholes, strategic placement for preventative or to deterent methods, planets and custom offices, asteroid fields and low/null ice fields, spiking unarmed POS, dead space traps, and even fleet warfare.
They can be used inside warp disruption fields, similar to cans, abandoned drones, and other objects meant to decloak and/or cause damage. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
781
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:02:53 -
[13] - Quote
POSs and there guns are restricted (at the moment) to very specific locations and are relatively easy not only to avoid but get away from as there targeting AI is pretty dumb, to be in any way really effective you need POS gunners, players on grid.
What you are proposing is basically an AFK weapon system which requires NO player to be on grid which is my primary objection. I object to AFK gameplay its as simple as that, if you want to cause damage you should be at the keyboard and on grid with your target and at risk of retaliation.
I also have serious concerns about the load such items would produce when used in numbers and while restricting them to Null is an obvious thing to do I think you may be underestimating just how much they would be used and what effect they would have. Last time I looked spamming large amounts of cans and drones still causes problems for the server and are still removed by GM's when reported these could have much the same effect.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:14:08 -
[14] - Quote
Samillian wrote:POSs and there guns are restricted (at the moment) to very specific locations and are relatively easy not only to avoid but get away from as there targeting AI is pretty dumb, to be in any way really effective you need POS gunners, players on grid.
What you are proposing is basically an AFK weapon system which requires NO player to be on grid which is my primary objection. I object to AFK gameplay its as simple as that, if you want to cause damage you should be at the keyboard and on grid with your target and at risk of retaliation.
I also have serious concerns about the load such items would produce when used in numbers and while restricting them to Null is an obvious thing to do I think you may be underestimating just how much they would be used and what effect they would have. Last time I looked spamming large amounts of cans and drones still causes problems for the server and are still removed by GM's when reported these could have much the same effect.
Thank You for your imput. It is relieving to know there are no problems with the design feature presented and your dislike is based on your feelings against afk play, even though this does not technically qualify as an afk mechanic anymore then a warp bubble.
Your concerns of load on the server are profoundly unwarranted as there are a great deal of other items in the game that have much longer timers, cause a great deal more lag, and provide no additional content. This is the job of Dev to actually tweak my idea to the point of being applicable and limiting drag on the server.
|
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
905
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:59:56 -
[15] - Quote
I was about to completely dismiss the whole concept of static mines, even though I love the idea it is too open to exploitation.
That said, imagine crossing an Interdictor and a Stealth Bomber...
Why not open up a new line of T2 destroyer, using those new models that people have been itching to see done as T2 varients, and create a minelayer ship class? The mines could work in a very similar way to Interdiction Probes, chuck one out, delayed online time, short 'armed' time (to prevent spamming), and they detonate by proximity with a smaller AoE than bombs.
They could be tailored to different tasks, like stasis feilds or other Ewar effects, they wouldn't necessarily have to cause actual damage.
Friends
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
123
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:34:50 -
[16] - Quote
There's nothing good about mines that doesn't overlap with stealth bomber bombs.
Not saying that more tools for small ships or kitchen sink fleets to fight doctrines of "bring only battleships +" wouldn't be nice, but the stealth bomber is the king of this niche role and I doubt CCP will eve let people have greater firepower against fleets/bigger ships on small ships.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:13:12 -
[17] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:I was about to completely dismiss the whole concept of static mines, even though I love the idea it is too open to exploitation.
That said, imagine crossing an Interdictor and a Stealth Bomber...
Why not open up a new line of T2 destroyer, using those new models that people have been itching to see done as T2 varients, and create a minelayer ship class? The mines could work in a very similar way to Interdiction Probes, chuck one out, delayed online time, short 'armed' time (to prevent spamming), and they detonate by proximity with a smaller AoE than bombs.
They could be tailored to different tasks, like stasis feilds or other Ewar effects, they wouldn't necessarily have to cause actual damage.
Thank you for constructive input.
This is actually what would limit the aforementioned problem with large groups of people deliberately spamming mines. This new concept would actually provide a tactical role in mine placement and help to limit its abuse further, while still allowing them to be used in dynamic fashion.
I support this idea. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:17:55 -
[18] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:There's nothing good about mines that doesn't overlap with stealth bomber bombs.
Not saying that more tools for small ships or kitchen sink fleets to fight doctrines of "bring only battleships +" wouldn't be nice, but the stealth bomber is the king of this niche role and I doubt CCP will eve let people have greater firepower against fleets/bigger ships on small ships.
Mines and bombs are not nearly the same classification of weaponry.
That being said, if a new ship was not used for mine placement, perhaps stealth bombers (like the hound for example) could fill the roll instead. Bomb launchers can only be put on stealth bombers and as such, a mine placement module could be a simple solution to eliminating the problem with spamming mines along with providing another roll that bombers could fill that would be in line with what they are designed to do in the first place.
Interesting. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
705
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:08:35 -
[19] - Quote
Reynas Arthie wrote:Make them a variant to bombs.......more of a dynamic tactical weapon
Same restrictions etc (null, AOE doesn't go off if it hits a gate/station etc)
Make it a high slot module (Mine layer II)
Give it say mag cap of 5 mines. Each mine say has 5km AOE. Once deployed the mine stays around for 10-15s then explodes.
Idea being you stick it on a fast frig or w/e then fly through your enemy group dropping mines. make it an anti drone/support weapon rather than a long term area denial weapon.
This way it doesn't become any more of a system hog than normal weapon systems but could potentially add so new tactics to fleet combat. I like this idea
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:33:59 -
[20] - Quote
Given the massive clouds of wrecks and other static objects I've seen in the game, I don't think mines would pose much of a technical problem for the server or the client so long as they don't move. Not only is a static object like a mine less demanding than a drone, it can be made with as few as 4 polygons (pyramid shaped). You can't use the "it'll kill EVE" argument on mines any more than you could say CCP should remove drones because if 200 people drop 5 drones each the game will die. Additionally, mines in a fleet fight would likely reduce the total number of objects in space, as they would be able to destroy multiple drones and small ships per mine, as well as wrecks.
The only hurdle is how long should they stay in space. And if you require a large enough spacing between them, your LOD could basically render most of them as a single player-facing poly or just an overlay marker, meaning thousands could be in space at once and it would not lag a modern video card at all. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2155
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:52:51 -
[21] - Quote
You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second. Not simply when access is attempted. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
633
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:18:30 -
[22] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second. Not simply when access is attempted.
That and OP is thinking well I am putting them up in their system, whats the deal?
Its them all over the place that is the issue. Its them in many systems. This scales up real fast.
Cans and bubbles don't do these persistent range calcs when left out so ccp tolerates them more. Programming has it iirc on the ship's end to get the effects. Can just sits there...its the ships programming that says doh....too close to can, decloaking now. No ship in system that can just sits there.
Why CCP imo leaves them to the gentlemen's agreement I mentioned earlier. The occasional violation of too many cans petition process the lesser of 2 evils when the other evil is running code that scours every system in eve and monitors can numbers, per tick. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2155
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:32:37 -
[23] - Quote
Cans also have a removal feature at DT based on time now. Because can clutter was getting too bad. So CCP haven't even left Cans to run free. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:41:28 -
[24] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:Given the massive clouds of wrecks and other static objects I've seen in the game, I don't think mines would pose much of a technical problem for the server or the client so long as they don't move. Not only is a static object like a mine less demanding than a drone, it can be made with as few as 4 polygons (pyramid shaped). You can't use the "it'll kill EVE" argument on mines any more than you could say CCP should remove drones because if 200 people drop 5 drones each the game will die. Additionally, mines in a fleet fight would likely reduce the total number of objects in space, as they would be able to destroy multiple drones and small ships per mine, as well as wrecks.
The only hurdle is how long should they stay in space. And if you require a large enough spacing between them, your LOD could basically render most of them as a single player-facing poly or just an overlay marker, meaning thousands could be in space at once and it would not lag a modern video card at all.
As for the gameplay issues...
I imagine them working like stationary bombs with a proximity detonator. Once activated, the mine starts a timer and then detonates an AOE weapon (maybe not the same damage or radius, who knows) that also destroys the mine. Ideally, the timer checks for proximity one last time a few seconds before detonating, so the mine isn't easily tricked. The reason for the timer is so you have a chance to escape the area if you're paying attention. This also means players in fast ships could counter mine fields by triggering mines and escaping at the last second.
The difference between bombs and mines in space is the same as the difference in the real world. Bombs are used for force projection. Mines are used for area denial - something that is pretty scarce in EVE tactics. In other words, mines are a largely defensive measure, while bombs are offensive.
Contributions like this get things done.
Bravo. |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4441
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:08:32 -
[25] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:A timer would prevent server clutter and lag, while allowing them to be used practically for ambush, defense, and gate camp. My proposal is to include a timer that, when it expires, self detonates the mines, I suggest 1 hour, though it could set for longer depending on the limited number that can be placed, they would also disappear at restart. I like the idea of a 1-hour timer, although I would like to enhance this by simply disabling (as opposed to self-detonating) the mine. In addition, warping off-grid, docking or jumping through a Stargate would render any deployed mines inert as well. This means you have to stay on-grid (cloaked or uncloaked) and be actively playing.
In terms of limits, one active mine per ship should suffice. Probably a smaller AOE than bombs (10km?), and you should be able to remote trigger it if you remain within 20-30km.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 00:29:07 -
[26] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Deep Nine wrote:A timer would prevent server clutter and lag, while allowing them to be used practically for ambush, defense, and gate camp. My proposal is to include a timer that, when it expires, self detonates the mines, I suggest 1 hour, though it could set for longer depending on the limited number that can be placed, they would also disappear at restart. I like the idea of a 1-hour timer, although I would like to enhance this by simply disabling (as opposed to self-detonating) the mine. In addition, warping off-grid, docking or jumping through a Stargate would render any deployed mines inert as well. This means you have to stay on-grid (cloaked or uncloaked) and be actively playing. In terms of limits, one active mine per ship should suffice. Probably a smaller AOE than bombs (10km?), and you should be able to remote trigger it if you remain within 20-30km.
I believe the one hour timer is sufficient as well and rendering the mine inert instead of self detonation is an interesting idea as well, but may possibly add too much to clutter, having them self det with a visible count down timer will help limit additional server lag while warning the pilot of time remaining to retrieve the mine, but it shouldn't be out of the question.
I do not however believe the mines should shut down upon the pilot docking or leaving system, as it is not tied to the ships system anymore then a warp bubble would shut down upon a pilot leaving. The mechanic could operate similar to a warp bubbles independent ability to stand alone without a ship tied to it to monitor and make sure it stays active. However, leaving the system, or being out of site of the mine runs the risk of it running out of time anyway and they should have a fair cost to them to prevent just throwing them away, once rendered inert, it should be able to be scooped up by another pilot. This provides incentive to stay close and would possibly add to clean up by providing a financial incentive for players to salvage/scoop them up if found abandoned.
I believe between 1 to 3 mines is moderate, but one, depending on the size, could suffice as well. That would be up to the Dev of course. The AOE shouldn't be larger then the spacing between the mines, as this would cause fragging of surrounding mines friendly mines.
Remote trigger is an awesome idea but needs a citation to explain it further, which I am interested in.
Thank You for your contributions. You have very good ideas. |
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 01:59:33 -
[27] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second. Not simply when access is attempted.
Distance checks are not computationally intensive. The formula is:
Sqrt [ (X1 - X2)^2 + (Y1 - Y2)^2 + (Z1 - Z2)^2 ]
Even a low-end single core CPU can do this thousands of times per second without batting an eyelash. Game engines tend to be really good at calculating sphere intersections and this sort of thing because it's basically how collision detection works. |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
379
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 07:35:43 -
[28] - Quote
yeah and it has been stated many times that during the BIG fleet fights, the ones where having a wing of minelayers might actually be fun that tuts into an ungodly number of checks...
250 guys times 249 guys is 62250 checks before we even add in bubbles, drones, etc ad naseum... Or you know, the other few hondered - few thousand guys on the enemies team... |
Philpip
Mutiny Ahoy The Periphery
138
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 09:44:38 -
[29] - Quote
I'd like to see an evolution towards a anchorable bubble / mine.
AoE damage, cycle / amount based on size, to all inside said bubble because, lets be realistic, mines to not discriminate between friend and foe.
This sorts the 'where' they can be placed and will not significantly change server loading.
No, you were not blobbed, you just didn't bring enough people to the fight!
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
270
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 13:56:04 -
[30] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Once again, in this extreme circumstance. News flash dude. CCP has to code for the EXTREME because we the players ALWAYS find a way to place the client / server in EXTREME situations.
With all the restriction you have placed on these I do not see any real use for having them at all other than the "it would be cool" factor and that is a poor reason to have them. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |