Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
27016
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:31:42 -
[391] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Ah, the fallacy fallacy. Nope. The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that, just because your reasoning is fallacious, the conclusion is wrong. That is not what's at play here. Rather, it's the conclusion that, since all you have to offer is fallacies, you can't have much of an argument, or you'd offer that instead GÇö a conclusion that is further reinforced by your unwillingness (or is it inability) to actually address the points being made.
Quote:The point is, you don't play the game, and are dismissing outright people who do. Incorrect, and based on your previous statements, this is you projecting more than anything else.
Quote:The negative consequence is tiny. Some of the safest ships in the game gaining double-digit increases in EHP in exchange for nothing is not a GÇ£tinyGÇ¥ consequence. Their getting that even when AFK (which they often are) is not a tiny consequence. Their getting that when they should be adjusted in the exact opposite direction doubles the non-tininess of the change.
Quote:Is what I'd say to somebody who actually undocked. Your desperate reliance on fallacies just further proves you have no argument and are only in this thread to troll
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 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
948
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:40:35 -
[392] - Quote
The last time you bothered to undock was 2013. That's not a fallacy, that's you trying to deflect from the fact that you're not qualified to discuss anything outside of ship spinning. Trying to discredit my entire argument, which is that the EHP buff is not bad, is in itself a fallacy. Play distraction games all you want, fact is, these changes are overall good for the game, and the real problems that they present won't be apparent till we see how they affect various fits on sisi.
The freighter issue is literally only an issue to lazy gankers.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
27016
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:48:52 -
[393] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:The last time you bothered to undock was 2013. Inventing incoherent nonsense does not constitute an argument.
Do you have anything to say that even remotely relates to the points being made?
Quote:That's not a fallacy Yes it is. It's an ad hominem based on a conscious and intentional lie.
Quote:rying to discredit my entire argument I'm not trying. I've already succeeded, with ample help from you. You can keep projecting your failures on me, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.
Some of the safest ships in the game are getting EHP buffs on the order of 25GÇô30%, for no particular reason. AFK:ers are being buffed, for no particular reason. Ships that already habitually have these benefits will still have to fit a module to get them, and will end up with a veeeery tiny reduction in EHP in exchange for a very tiny QoL enhancement.
We already know what the effects of the changes as written are and we can already see how they will affect various fits GÇö no Sisi needed. Hence why this thread contains plenty of feedback to the effect that this change cannot sensibly happen without a lot of ships being counter-balanced in the opposite direction, especially freighters since the unwarranted buff they're getting is nothing short of insane and must be addressed before this thing goes live to not break things completely.
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 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
951
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:09:56 -
[394] - Quote
You have zero credibility, so why do you expect everybody to respect your opinion? Your entire argument is that buffing freighter EHP will end suicide ganking. It will not. You're pulling **** out of your ******* and demanding we acknowledge it. I'd take anybody with a red as blood killboard as more credible than your opinions, because they actually tried something ingame rather than whined on the forums.
Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. That's it. A gank takes 15 pilots now, you bring 20. 30 pilots, you bring 40. Ganks can range from 80m up to 1b in costs. This buff moves it to 100m to 1.3b. That's a pittance.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17379
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:15:20 -
[395] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:You have zero credibility, so why do you expect everybody to respect your opinion? Your entire argument is that buffing freighter EHP will end suicide ganking. It will not. You're pulling **** out of your ******* and demanding we acknowledge it. I'd take anybody with a red as blood killboard as more credible than your opinions, because they actually tried something ingame rather than whined on the forums.
Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. That's it. A gank takes 15 pilots now, you bring 20. 30 pilots, you bring 40. Ganks can range from 80m up to 1b in costs. This buff moves it to 100m to 1.3b. That's a pittance.
1.6 billion with 16 people, over 2 billion with these changes which mean most of the current freighters getting ganked are no longer viable targets. The problem isnt that we cant kill them, its that all of these nerfs is making piracy in highsec impossible. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
27016
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:19:50 -
[396] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:why do you expect everybody to respect your opinion? Because I have a long history of making fact-based statements and an almost equally long history of hauling freight (safely) all over highsec. What have you done to make your continuous lies and trolling worth considering? And since you are a liar and a troll, why on earth would anyone ever be insane enough to take a chance that anything you say has any connection to reality?
Quote:Your entire argument is that buffing freighter EHP will end suicide ganking. No, that's just another fallacy on your part.
Quote:You're pulling **** out of your ******* You're confusing me with you. You see, you aren't even able to present any kind of factual or topical arguments GÇö only lies, trolling, personal abuse, and ad hominem arguments, none of which actually serve to prove you right (or even knowledgeable) about anything. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Quote:Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. GǪwhich is somewhere in the region of 30pp more than they should be buffed, and definitely 30% more ships than should be needed. And it happens for no good reason whatsoever, at a time when it would make more sense to go in the opposite direction.
And that is not all that's happening either, so that's just yet another lie on your part.
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 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
953
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:20:04 -
[397] - Quote
Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Subotai Khan
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:24:05 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.
Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead? |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
953
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:25:23 -
[399] - Quote
Subotai Khan wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default.
Why add base hull resistance, and not raw hull HP instead?
Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2674
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:28:44 -
[400] - Quote
I have trouble with the "ganking won't be profitable any more" argument in the context of ganking empty freighters. You are just reaping what you sowed.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17380
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:31:05 -
[401] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine.
No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
27017
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:32:36 -
[402] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Damage controls give resists, so CCP is just moving it from the module to the hull itself. If you just gave a raw 33% hp buff to hull, then adding a DCU on top of that would multiply it again. What do you get when you multiply Gàö by 0.6?
Quote:Tippia, I'm not seeing any argument from you Learn to read. Alternatively, stop lying. Then address the points being made.
Incorrect.
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 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Ripard Teg
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
1250
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:34:42 -
[403] - Quote
Globby wrote:Mark Marketson wrote:
What exactly prevents your from popping the thrasher before it shoots the wreck?
What a wonderful question. A 2 million ISK thrasher can sit at a ping, or bounce pings with invulnerability. No one is able to catch him as he is doing this. He then is able to warp down to the freighter that is being ganked as it is being ganked, and hold his 10 second invulnerability. During this, if the freighter dies (which it will, unless the gank fails, which means that a wreck shooter wasn't needed anyway) a wreck shooter will be able to lock, and shoot the wreck at the same time, or before anyone else can shoot him. Worst case scenario the thrasher shoots as he dies, still killing the wreck. There is no consistent counter, even with say, a dozen people trying to stop this. Globby -- Globby, mind -- is arguing here that a single player should not be able to destroy a high value target.
This may well be the most ironic thing written in the history of EVE.
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
953
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:35:41 -
[404] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine. No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went.
So why are more than a dozen freighters dying every day worth WAY above your profit margin?
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17382
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:37:01 -
[405] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I have trouble with the "ganking won't be profitable any more" argument in the context of ganking empty freighters. You are just reaping what you sowed.
A handful of people are abusing the soe missions, we should remove all missions from highsec.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17382
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:39:06 -
[406] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine. No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went. So why are more than a dozen freighters dying every day worth WAY above your profit margin?
There isn't more than a dozen freighters getting ganked per day. |
Roberta Gastoni
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:43:53 -
[407] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:Freighter get a 30% hull EHP buff. So you need 30% more ships to gank them. That's it. A gank takes 15 pilots now, you bring 20. 30 pilots, you bring 40. Ganks can range from 80m up to 1b in costs. This buff moves it to 100m to 1.3b. That's a pittance.
I actually agree with you, in terms of ganking only the quantity of brute force needed is going to change, but the core mechanics are still there.
A freighter gank is done by bumping indefinitely out of warp alignment a ship by using another high speed / mass ship, such as the machariel, while the rest of the force assemble, warp in at very close range, overheat everything and burn before concord can burn them. Due to sec status and concord mechanics, they don't all instant pop but they have enough time to kill the freighter.
Now the bumping mechanics is untouched by this change, nor the concord response times, only the quantity of force needed to gank said ship is going to change. Bringing more people is going to make ganking less efficient in terms monetary return, but roleplay from code aside, ganking is already a very high reward vs cost activity, with catalysts costing 1.2 mils and taloses costing 80mils, while properly picked kill can net several billions.
A very recent obelisk gank from goonswarm ganking force in high sec, on an anti tanked ship (3 cargo mods), required 16 taloses and netted a 10 billions kill mail with a 4 billions of drops. One talos, from the killmails i'm reading, cost 120 millions, making it a total of 1.9 billions cost a final net gain of almost 2 billions in drops. Considering that in a ganking fleet there's often a main and an alt, we are talking of around 220 millions gain per player.
If you choose to gank in catalysts, cost is going to fall dramatically per ship used, but you'll need more or less twice the pilots, so also the net per player is going to fall.
TL;DR - Net gain per ganks are going to get nerfed, not the ganks. Wreck Hull hp buff is going to make gankers more likely to scoop loot, buffing the potential gain. That's why ccp said wreck hp buff counter the overall hull passive resistence.
And personal note, a very strong opinion from me now, gankers that crying from a nerf to their activity are NOT gallants! You are goofuses! Man up, tell CCP "gf", and prove hp buffs are not going to touch your game play.
Quoting code.
Quote:Goofus begs CCP to buff hulk EHP. Gallant tanks his ships to improve their EHP.
And from this i'm going to say
Goofus begs CCP to revert the hull resist buff Gallants do more dps with his ships or bring more friends
Don't be goofuses, gankers. |
Kyra Lee
Ixian Machines TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
49
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:43:55 -
[408] - Quote
Lots of people complaining and counter complaining in this topic...
The problem that I see here is again there is only a single M1 option. Why can we not have a compact version and a version that provides better resists but has a higher fitting cost. Give us an actual choice, more fitting room or better resists. Having a single M1 option being wholly better than the M0 and the single M5 option being wholly better than the M1 doesn't really provide the player with any options to think about.
Do we want our players to think or do we want them to slap on the highest item level thing they have access to? |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
953
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:45:19 -
[409] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:Almost all the freighters currently dying are over 3b isk in cargo (aside from CODE ganks on empty freighters for lulz). Pray to RNGesus like the rest of the ratters for a good drop.
You're fine. No we are not. See your lack of knowledge here is glaring, you cant turn a profit on a less than 1 bil margin, the loot drop chance simply wont allow it. If you increase our costs then we have to target more expensive cargo and that means far fewer potential targets. You are effectively strangling the pirates of targets in the same way barge ganking went. So why are more than a dozen freighters dying every day worth WAY above your profit margin? There isn't more than a dozen freighters getting ganked per day.
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:53:10 -
[410] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets?
Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec? |
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
954
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:57:47 -
[411] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets? Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec?
It removes 1, maybe 2 targets. The whales are still there and still WAY profitable.
Don't complain just because you're bad at the game. Sheesh.
Anybody who wants to get a look at how poor gankers are, go to everybody's favorite killboard that starts with a zed in canada. Hit menu, hit freighters. Look at all the juicy killmails.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Adam Lyon
Incident Command Local Is Primary
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:08:35 -
[412] - Quote
Jin Kugu wrote: Miniluv makes 0 profit.
Any loot we get goes back into ganking. We have a lot of months where we run a deficit. That means after thousands and thousands of hours of playing this terrible game we made negative isk. Before facturing in the cost of gankers having to plex their accounts.
If CCP fozzie wants to see the real numbers for freighter ganking maybe he should have asked.
Just wanted to point out how misleading this is. The reason you make 0 isk is because that's where you draw the line. PushX has made changes to their hauling such that they won't take loads over 1.5bisk because that's where the break even line is for gankers. All this does is push the line up. You'll still gank for 0 isk. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17383
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:10:51 -
[413] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets? Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec? It removes 1, maybe 2 targets. The whales are still there and still WAY profitable. Don't complain just because you're bad at the game. Sheesh. Anybody who wants to get a look at how poor gankers are, go to everybody's favorite killboard that starts with a zed in canada. Hit menu, hit freighters. Look at all the juicy killmails.
The only bads here are the people wanting more safety than 0.1% chance of being ganked in over 2 million jumps. The chance of an average person living in the US being struck by lightning in a given year is estimated at 1 in 960,000. You are more likely to be struck by ******* lightning than ganked in highsec. |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
954
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:23:45 -
[414] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aiwha wrote:
So catch more. Upping your costs by 30% hardly puts ANY of your money making freighters out of reach. They're all +3b losses. More than half are +6b losses. To be honest, if you're losing money doing this, I question how you're managing your isk.
The income is there.
How do we catch more if you remove a large number of viable targets? Again, why do ships with a less than 0.1% chance of getting ganked over 2 million gate jumps need 157,000 more ehp on what is already the biggest buffer tanks in highsec? It removes 1, maybe 2 targets. The whales are still there and still WAY profitable. Don't complain just because you're bad at the game. Sheesh. Anybody who wants to get a look at how poor gankers are, go to everybody's favorite killboard that starts with a zed in canada. Hit menu, hit freighters. Look at all the juicy killmails. The only bads here are the people wanting more safety than 0.1% chance of being ganked in over 2 million jumps. The chance of an average person living in the US being struck by lightning in a given year is estimated at 1 in 960,000. You are more likely to be struck by ******* lightning than ganked in highsec.
Lets stop pretending gankers go anywhere but the trade routes and choke points. Udema, Niarja, and their adjoining systems are where freighter ganks happen. Ganks elsewhere are noteworthy simply for their oddity. Your odds of being ganked depend on how many other dumb whales are rolling through there at any given time. Which is much, MUCH lower than the "2 million jumps" that you're trying to hide behind. If you're going to count EVERY jump, its closer to 22k in a single day. WHich still includes that anything that's not a freighter is going to be left alone by gank teams. (since haulers are the prey of the much smaller teams or solo gankers)
The numbers don't lie. Gankers are not going away with this buff to EHP. All its doing is giving freighter pilots another 400-500m of breathing room.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2674
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:24:03 -
[415] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:I have trouble with the "ganking won't be profitable any more" argument in the context of ganking empty freighters. You are just reaping what you sowed. A handful of people are abusing the soe missions, we should remove all missions from highsec. Generally, only a relatively small number of players engage in any inappropriate behaviour. The fact remains that undesirable behaviour will inevitably be countered - what else can you expect?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Bester Lamont
Circumlunar Zaibatsu
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:39:22 -
[416] - Quote
Make anti-ganking as obscenely profitable as ganking and balance will be restored very quickly. |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:07:31 -
[417] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote: CCP introduce options for freighter pilots, so they can choose more cargo space, faster acceleration, or more EHP, or in niche cases other choices. Generally a good change - one that gave real choices with real consequences for freighter pilots.
This was a flat freighter nerf at the time. It is not possible to get the same EHP, cargo, accel, and warp times that freighters had before the change (including the warp-speed mechanics change at about the same time). I'm not saying this was a bad change by any means, and choice is great, but don't try to obfuscate the inherent nerf the new system brought to freighter stats. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3495
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:07:39 -
[418] - Quote
why do the three new faction DCs have identical stats? Why not just adding one DC from one faction.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2202
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:24:50 -
[419] - Quote
Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:I have trouble with the "ganking won't be profitable any more" argument in the context of ganking empty freighters. You are just reaping what you sowed. A handful of people are abusing the soe missions, we should remove all missions from highsec. Generally, only a relatively small number of players engage in any inappropriate behaviour. The fact remains that undesirable behaviour will inevitably be countered - what else can you expect? I expect changes that target the "undesirable behaviour", not to negatively impact the overall game.
This is a lazy change that will stifle conflict in highsec while decreasing engagement with the game by making AFK hauling even safer. It is a nerf to everyone else: it devalues hauling as a service making it even harder for active haulers to compete against the (CCP-approved autopilot-using) hauling bots, reduces demand for industrial goods (like the freighters themselves) that will no longer be lost, and raises the bar on the size of ganking groups even higher. The last obvious consequence is particularly baffling to me, as CCP just spent a huge amount of effort reducing the bar on group size to contest sov to the point where now one person can now go try to stake a claim, yet they feel the need to raise the groups size needed to even try to contest a freighter by another 20% from the dozen or two it already takes.
So much for the idea a new player or small group can affect the universe. It's amusing to me that the game mechanics give me and my 10 friends a better shot at taking sov in some nullsec system than to knock over a freighter in highsec, just because we can't meet some NPC-enforced DPS check.
If freighters aren't safe enough, there are plenty of other changes that could be made that would not specifically buff the laziest of them. Of course, if you look at the details you quickly find that the "good" freighter pilots are already 99.8+% safe in highsec, which begs the question why is this buff even needed in the first place? I mean, is shooting empty freighters really "undesirable behaviour" as part of your effort to enforce a protection racket, in a sandbox game where the whole point is for players to engage in such emergent game play?
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2320
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:30:34 -
[420] - Quote
Jin Kugu wrote:Warr akini used to run 13 ratting carriers to fund miniluv and burned out getting miniluv back in shape after Globby. You're dumb :getout: Maybe, just maybe, we should not care about 1 person burning out on the task to nurture dozens in a Multiplayer game? Maybe, just maybe, we should take this as a hint and tell warr and similar pilots to see their mistake and make more people contribute to the action instead of allowing them to merely consume what 1 other person created? Would that be too much to ask for? Probably, when it comes to CFCODE ganking.
All that aside, CFC just got CCP to introduce SP trading and they already got their first untanked, unfitted, unprepared and overloaded Ark that was on its way just 4 days into the game. My educated guess is that this is going to happen a lot more often in the future because dumb and dumber can now sit in toys so early on that they have absolutely no way at all to learn how to pilot these toys properly.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |