Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sile Suirghiche
Gaidhlig Technology
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 19:13:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Marketcheck2 Try warpscramming a mothership some time
You are conflating two completely different problems. If there needs to be anti-warp capability which affects motherships (and there does) that doesn't somehow mean that bumping is the only answer.
"It works" doesn't mean "It's the best possible system".
|
Nicocat
Caldari NASA Navy New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 19:28:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot Your cow example is quite interesting, but you seem to be misunderstanding the physics of Mass and Kinetic energy.
If a cow traveling at 500m/s were to hit the side of a super tanker, it would splatter the cow all over the side. It may even dent the hull a little, but it wouldn't influence the tankers heading. Nothing which would be noticable anyway.
If the same cow were traveling at 5000m/s and it colided with the same super tanker, it's likely to penetrate the hull and make a nice mess, but it would still fail to influence the tankers heading.
If that cow approached the tanker and applied force over a sustained duration it would stand a better chance of affecting the tankers heading.
This web page will best explain the physics behind collisions.
Momentum
I believe he said "Crow." As in, the interceptor =P
Also, I'll stop bumping when dropping a dictor bubble yanks someone back from "entering warp" status to "oh, ****, Nico's Sabre is shooting me" status and KEEPS them there.
Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY
Down with alts! One character per account per IP! |
Rackar al'Ulqua
Arclight Support Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 19:45:00 -
[63]
Without out getting into ridiculous math and such, let's look at a couple things I'd like to point out.
1. Shields, in some way these could be twisted to the whole representation of no crushing collisions. So there's a pseudo-science "I win" button to counter that.
2. Need4Speed, didn't missiles actually get calculated as objects at some time and were stopped by intercepting them? Didn't it produce enough server overhead to get that removed?
3. Directional thrust, and don't mistake my usage of "thrust" to represent a mathematical thrust. Our ships move as propelled by some imaginary force emanating from some point on the outside. Thus, they must orient themselves in a direction to move about. No other in-game motions suggest the existence of thrust being generated in other other way; ships don't fly sideways. Because of this, and the fact that we warp along straight vectors without navigating, a ship must point itself at the intended target and apply enough "thrust" to reach that point. If anything prevents this alignment, and sufficient ramming would, the ship cannot launch in that direction.
If "collisions" are to be considered in the warp, mass should not be considered for damage put imparting a change in motion, a bump. Also, imagine if a mothership did reach warp in an engagement and that mass reached those speeds and you were in the way. Imagine if a mothership brought about massive destruction by warping to a shuttle parked in the midst of a fleet engagement?
Granted, I believe non-piloted vessels like drones and cargo should be ignored in this. I cannot say either way on asteroids and stations being involved, as I hate dancing out of stations and bouncing about belts but I love the environment affecting the game play. --- Your RIGHTS are a PRIVILEGE, don't abuse them.
|
Bish Ounen
Gallente Omni-Core Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 20:13:00 -
[64]
I would still say that the best and simplest solution to the bumping problem is to simply have the "noclip" option kick in the moment that warp is activated. Then the ship can take it's time turning and orienting into proper warp position, and then warp out. Anyone attempting to bump it would simply pass right through it. If CCP wanted, they could even include some kind of nifty "warp" graphic showing the warp tunnel forming around the ship before it zips down it.
As far as the Mothership issue goes, that is a problem. However it is not related to the bumping problem. That is a separate issue that also needs to be dealt with by the Devs. In case anyone wonders, I do think that Motherships and Titans should be scrammable. Just that it should take a really large number of scrams to do it. Of course, I also think that Titans shouldn't be able to Cyno-doomsday either, but that's yet another discussion best left to another thread. This Space Reserved until my sexy new sig is completed. :) |
Dampfschlaghammer
Minmatar Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 22:33:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Bish Ounen Absolutely NONE of your arguments stand up. They rely on a series of logical errors, strawmen and flimsy examples, none of which hold up under any serious scrutiny.
Lol nice ranting. Of course I did not expect that you would actually decide to point out some of these "series of logical errors", as you seem to be so fond of refuting my arguments by your rhetoric and your self-appointed "critical thinker" role alone. But let's repeat this one by one so you can follow for once.
Originally by: Bish Ounen The strongest argument you can bring to bear is that a Dev once suggested bumping as a tactic to use. That is all. Of course, you cite no sources to back up your claim, I simply have to take it on faith that you are not lying through your teeth.
Well how about you stop being lazy and go checking some facts BEFORE you accuse other people of exploiting?
It is a funny reversion of justice when people using a well-known and old tactic have to quote sources against charges made by somebody whose ONLY "proof" is that ONE dev allegedly said that they were going to "look into it" in a quite remote point of time (no mentioning of it being en exploit).
So what do we have?
- a dev using bumping in explaining how a legitimate tactic to take down a titan could work
- numerous threads on the forums discussing bumping and special bump-setups, something that is locked down immediately if it is regarded as an exploit
- numerous kills as a result of bumping, none of which were reimbursed / had consequences for the bumper. Which is always done if an exploit is used
So we have no instance of a dev calling bumping an exploit, and all evidence pointing towards it being accepted game play by CCP. Let us look now at what is actually much more important than "who-interprets-dev-posts-best": whether having bumping in game is a good thing in the first place.
Your argument here seems to revolve around the fact that there is no counter to bumping
- there are many things that do not have a counter on a module per module basis. Actually, bumping is very similar to webbing in this respect. There is no direct counter to both attacks other than a) being faster b) having him run out of cap for web / MWD
- to be really efficient, nanoships need to sacrifice low slots for speed mods
- webs counter bumping ships just nicely. Consider bringing a Huginn or a Rapier to slow down bumping ships, who will then be a sitting duck
Originally by: Bish Ounen Is there ANYTHING I can do within the game mechanics that will allow me to escape a dedicated anti-warp bumper other than luck?
No, not solo. The anti-warp bumper has sacrificed some efficiency, and you can kill him easily if you have some sort of backup or firepower. If you do not have backup and still die despite him having gimped his setup - tough luck, welcome to EVE.
Originally by: Bish Ounen Keep in mind, just because ONE Dev suggested using it in a specific manner does not mean that they approve of it's use for other things. One of the Devs was recently caught cheating on BOB's behalf. Does this therefore mean that all Devs approve of this behavior, or think everyone should cheat? Of course not. One example does not an argument make.
There are some differences between a dev cheating secretly and a dev cheating and openly discussing it on the forums. The main difference being that the latter thing does not happen ;).
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 23:07:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Elgar Lightfoot on 29/03/2007 23:11:16 "The anti-warp bumper has sacrificed some efficiency"
How exactly? It seems to me that the 'bumper' pilot actually has extra efficiency as he now has an extra mid slot to assign to other modules. He's not using a webber, instead he's exploiting a game mechanic to replace that module so he can be even more efficient in other way.
As to your statement about 'bumping' being legal as stated by the Devs. 'LeMonde's' Stated that it was a 'hypothetical' situation, and when asked directly if 'bumping' was a legal and permitted method his reply was...
Quote: These questions are ones you're going to have to ask Tuxford. I was just responding to the OP
Tuxford never posted, nor did any other dev stating that it was a legal and permitted move. The whole thread was a hypothetical question, and the reply clearly stated that they were NOT saying it was legal.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 00:33:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Aramendel on 30/03/2007 00:34:07
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot How exactly? It seems to me that the 'bumper' pilot actually has extra efficiency as he now has an extra mid slot to assign to other modules. He's not using a webber, instead he's exploiting a game mechanic to replace that module so he can be even more efficient in other way.
To be fast enough they have to use a MWD - there goes a med slot - a cap injector to be able to keep said MWD running for any extended period - there goes another med slot - and then a few low and/or rig slots for speedmods to be fast & agile enough to get to anything before it warps off.
Using 4+ slots to "save" one slot. Brilliant I say!
Quote: Tuxford never posted, nor did any other dev stating that it was a legal and permitted move. The whole thread was a hypothetical question, and the reply clearly stated that they were NOT saying it was legal.
He simply stated that he had not the authority to call it legal. It does not mean he does not know if it legal or not but just that he has no authority to call it either way. Not because it has no clue but because it is the usual policy to have only one "official" spokeperson to avoid people contradicting each other. Happened often enough.
But yes, Tux never responded there. So? Maybe he forgot about it. Maybe he thought it too unimportant to be worth a comment. It still speaks more for it being a nonissue and no exploiting whatsoever than the opposite.
When a gamemechanic is not intended the devs usually are rather quick to respond to it and you can petition your ships back. See the wreck aggro issue for example. There was a "It's an exploit" reply within days. The current bumping mechanics are like this since *years*. This might be a subtle hint.
|
Pepperami
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 01:13:00 -
[68]
Awful idea.
Eve PVP needs more player ability/tactics, not less.
|
sarraah
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 04:27:00 -
[69]
ok.. make it so that you cant bump somone.. But in response to that remove all warp stabs :) OR prevent people from putting more then 1 on at a time.
So i guess you got poped? By someone raming you ? And now you come here on the forums screaming for the nerf bat to make it so you cant get poped in 00. Why dont we just make it so that no one who doesn't want to get blown up gets a special mod that prevents all dmg and insta warps you away from those bad people who want to kill you.
Grow up if your not willing to take the risk in 00 then get the heck out.
|
Mr Mozzie
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 04:37:00 -
[70]
Originally by: sarraah ok.. make it so that you cant bump somone.. But in response to that remove all warp stabs :) OR prevent people from putting more then 1 on at a time.
That's a bit harsh!
|
|
Teufel Hund
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 05:17:00 -
[71]
Ive played a few online flight sims, and from what I can remember the collision for the aircraft was turned off. So this can be coded, you go to bump that ship, well now you just go right through him.
Basically I think it is absurd that a frigate with a mwd can bump a freighter, or even a capitol. I have never lost a ship due to bumoing but I have been on the recieving wnd of a ceptor bumping me. Nothing like webbing his *** and sending TII scourge fury into him.
|
Adm Tecumseh
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 05:34:00 -
[72]
My biggest beef is that the mass ratio seems screwed. A noob ship can bump a dread out of alignment?? I mean really A noob ship colliding with a dread should not even be noticed by the dread let alone bump it out of alignment or off a station. IE I exit from a station in my raven and a shuttle exits right behind me and it has enough mass to bump me out of alignment? Think about it.
Adm
|
Voodoo Mistross
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 05:55:00 -
[73]
I undocked the other night and ran smack bang into a BS, the BS near did a backflip, while not antwhere near realistic, it did make a hilarious picture that had me laughing, although I am sure the pilot of the BS wasnt.
|
chromer one
FinFleet Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 06:46:00 -
[74]
Make ships act like in old american movies. Bump and they explode with huge gasoline flames with coal dust and pod¦s diving to nearest ditch.
And also ban all pvp it¦s makeing people sad when they loose pixel¦s that they have worked for so hard.
-Out of body.. back in five minutes.
|
Craminu
Gallente Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 07:09:00 -
[75]
bumping bigger ship with smaller ship. should not prevent warp to much. little ship shouldent be able to bump away bigger ship. the bigger ship should win. and smaller ship wrecked ue to collision. lmao
Red dwarf are recruiting. convo/mail me if interested |
Zalacious
Caldari Macabre Votum Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 08:37:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Aphotic Raven Worst whine thread i've ever ever seen.
Its like the op isn't even trying...
This cant be fixed cos it isnt broken.
Did you get splattered recently after being bumped?
Bumping should be Bannable... Its a shame stupidity is not a bannable of offense imo.
Well put
You seriously need at least 40% more tears and screaming before anyone will take your whine seriously.
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 10:09:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Aramendel To be fast enough they have to use a MWD - there goes a med slot - a cap injector to be able to keep said MWD running for any extended period - there goes another med slot - and then a few low and/or rig slots for speedmods to be fast & agile enough to get to anything before it warps off.
Using 4+ slots to "save" one slot. Brilliant I say!
But he's not giving up those 4. The point of a fast agile ship is to get into range to grapple. Not to race and collide. No matter which he did he'd still be using those 4, just with colliding he's exploiting the system in that he doesn't need the skills or equipment to grapple. He fills the grapplers roll for free. How about if I found a way to use speed to insta jump between systems, without using the stargate? After all, navigation is a part of the game and all I'm doing is utilizing existing game mechanics to perform a feature which exists in other forms?
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot Tuxford never posted, nor did any other dev stating that it was a legal and permitted move. The whole thread was a hypothetical question, and the reply clearly stated that they were NOT saying it was legal.
He simply stated that he had not the authority to call it legal. It does not mean he does not know if it legal or not but just that he has no authority to call it either way. Not because it has no clue but because it is the usual policy to have only one "official" spokeperson to avoid people contradicting each other. Happened often enough.
But yes, Tux never responded there. So? Maybe he forgot about it. Maybe he thought it too unimportant to be worth a comment. It still speaks more for it being a nonissue and no exploiting whatsoever than the opposite.
And there's my point, just because a dev hasn't said it's illegal, it doesn't automatically make it legal. You can not assume based on the Devs NOT stating something. Until a devs clearly states that it IS permitted then it has to be classified as suspect, simply because it's quite clear it's not an intended action.
Originally by: Aramendel When a game mechanic is not intended the devs usually are rather quick to respond to it and you can petition your ships back. See the wreck aggro issue for example. There was a "It's an exploit" reply within days. The current bumping mechanics are like this since *years*. This might be a subtle hint.
So by your reasoning 'Logoffski' is a legal and permitted game mechanic too. One that was in game and used for years. It wasn't commented on by the Devs, yet they recently made changes to it, supposedly to prevent it happening.
How about Jet cans? They were a left over bug/exploit from beta. The devs even stated that mining with them wasn't an intended use and it was an exploit. It was never changed and for years was used and classed as an exploit. It was later accepted as a game feature.
What about Insta BM's? They were not intended to be used like that. It was even stated by the devs that it wasn't correct, yet it took years to change it. How about Indirect Targeting and POS's?
Exploits are not always commented on by the Devs, yet they exist. Just because they are not fixed or commented upon does not mean it's permitted to use them. The EULA is quite specific on what is an exploit.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 10:45:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot But he's not giving up those 4. The point of a fast agile ship is to get into range to grapple.
Why? With a t2 scram you are in scram distance of any ship jumping in if you are near the gate. No need at all to fit for high speed there. He's very much given up these slots - thse are slots which could be used for damage or tank instead. Any ship of equal size which does exactly this will be easily able to drive the speedmodded ship away or kill it. How is that not a sacrfice?
Quote: And there's my point, just because a dev hasn't said it's illegal, it doesn't automatically make it legal. You can not assume based on the Devs NOT stating something. Until a devs clearly states that it IS permitted then it has to be classified as suspect, simply because it's quite clear it's not an intended action.
You are contradicting yourself here. How is it "quite clear it's not an intended action"? You yourself said "You can not assume based on the Devs NOT stating something.", yet you are doing exactly that.
And, actually you can do just that.The devs do not clarify every single aspect of eve. I could make a whinethread complaining about ratters warping to a safe and cloaking within seconds of anyone entering the system and demand a dev response if that is legal..and will never get one. Generally you will rarely see devs saying that something is allowed, simply because the status quo in eve is "If its doable with the current game mechanics it's ok, if it's something not intended we'll say so". To repeat myself, the issue about wreck agressing timers is a perfect example there. We got a fast response that it is not intended and you can petition kills which made that way to get your stuff back. Threads which complain about something which is intended tend to be ignored, silence is it's own answer there.
Quote: Exploits are not always commented on by the Devs, yet they exist. Just because they are not fixed or commented upon does not mean it's permitted to use them. The EULA is quite specific on what is an exploit.
How can they be exploits when the devs do not comment them? It's the devs job to say what is an exploit and what not, not yours. Who designs the game? And because something got changed does not mean it was an exploit previously. With rev longrange ammo got reduced from +100% range to +80% range. Was therefore everyone who used the higher range previously an exploiter?
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 11:05:00 -
[79]
I think bumping stopping warp should be removed. It's metagaming (well what isn't nowdays) as we have modules to stop people from warping. Other dude is stabbed up ? well then he has prepared to run already so no problem of him getting away - it's not like he could fight with all stabs in lows.
Titans and Moterships are separate issue, but bumping should not affect them either. We would need other game mechaniks to get them. Perhaps up a hp of warp dirupt probes a bit and make them targetable so they dont pop so fast from officer smartbombs but support can try to cut their capitalship free ?
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 11:05:00 -
[80]
You seem unable to comprehend the difference between game changes and exploits. Changing the range on an ammo/weapon is a change in design, it does not mean everyone was exploiting before.
An exploit is when you use a game mechanic in a way it wasn't designed.
Exploits in the past include...
Mining to Jet cans. Logoffski. Insta BM's Indirect targeting. Can spamming. Node crashing. Teleporting.
None of the above were intended mechanics, yet some were fixed, others changed, and some adopted to be accepted as allowed. Before their change they were ALL exploits.
Ship bumping is ONLY in the game to prevent players getting hung up on each other. It's been stated by Devs that is why it's there. Bumping never existed before so it's quite obvious it wasn't designed to prevent warp. Players have found that they can use Bumping to prevent others from warping out. It's not an intended used. Collisions were never added or designed to be used to prevent warping. By the clear definition of 'exploit' bumping easily classifies as an exploit.
|
|
Jamius
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 12:32:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Jamius on 30/03/2007 12:29:09 Funny all the people saying bumping is an exploit, close to an exploit or lame.
1st time I lost a ship to being bumped I just thought "clever b*st*rd".
Maybe a little change to the effect when bumped is in order so that much larger ships cannot be stopped from warping (I got stopped almost dead by a drone in a Drake the other night while chasing someone with my drones orbitting them and I got a little too close) and the mass effect is more accurate but otherwise I see no problem with it.
More whining as is the way of the whiner. Hey ho
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 13:13:00 -
[82]
I made a suggestion in the features and ideas forum, how to implement bumping damage. I think this would take care of the problem discussed here. ______________ Join the Family |
Nyxus
GALAXIAN Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:20:00 -
[83]
Verone is completely right (as is usual).
IMPLEMENT BUMP DAMAGE NOW!
Additionally make the sqaud/fleet command skills allow for setting up formations. You know, to make those skills more useful? Would reduce blobbing for those without skills and reduce the rediculous "mah crow/domi/typhoon/vaga bumps u 100km lolol".
Nyxus
The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships. |
Major Stallion
The Dark Horses Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:03:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot I don't actually think ships should be able to 'bump' each other at all. With the mass of these things they'd destroy each other if they really did collide. But the point of the post was to draw the attention of CCP to a game exploit.
Why bother training up to use Scramblers, when all you need to a fast ship to run into them?
I would love to agree with u that this is an exploit of game mechanics, but when I filed a petition stating that i was bumped, they stated that it is a mechanic that is intended to be there and there is no intention of replacing ships lost to the use of the mechanic. Furthermore I was told that there were no plans to change bumping as they said the mechanic is "working as intended"....typical CCP
|
Elgar Lightfoot
Lightfoot Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:10:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Major Stallion
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot I don't actually think ships should be able to 'bump' each other at all. With the mass of these things they'd destroy each other if they really did collide. But the point of the post was to draw the attention of CCP to a game exploit.
Why bother training up to use Scramblers, when all you need to a fast ship to run into them?
I would love to agree with u that this is an exploit of game mechanics, but when I filed a petition stating that i was bumped, they stated that it is a mechanic that is intended to be there and there is no intention of replacing ships lost to the use of the mechanic. Furthermore I was told that there were no plans to change bumping as they said the mechanic is "working as intended"....typical CCP
Wasn't that a GM response though? Not a CCP dev one? If I were you I'd appeal it. If I lost a ship to someone because I was unable to warp through bumping I'd petition exploit.
|
Phelan Lore
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:22:00 -
[86]
Sounds like somebody lost thier stabbed up ship. Boohoo...
Stabs are not a substitute for know how to fly your ship or proper scouting. -
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:23:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot You seem unable to comprehend the difference between game changes and exploits. Changing the range on an ammo/weapon is a change in design, it does not mean everyone was exploiting before.
And you seem to be unable to comprehend that there is only one group which decides what is an exploit and what not.
The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you. The devs. Not you.
Got it?
Quote: An exploit is when you use a game mechanic in a way it wasn't designed.
Wrong. Maybe you should read the EULA yourself:
An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever.
Bumping uses 100% game mechanics. It is not using any bug. Ergo it is no exploit.
Now, you could classify it as unintended use of game mechanics. This is however no exploit. This includes stuff like can mining, bubble logging, the nanofad, instas and many other things. Repeat after me: Those are/were no exploits.
When there is an "unintended use of game mechanics" the devs decide (and not you, just as reminder) how it effects the game from their point of view. In the end there are three options:
A) they think it does not effect the game in a negative way (or even improves the game) -> nothing happens. It will get integrated into the game. For example can mining.
B) they are not happy how it effects the game, but cannot change it right away. It does not effect the game that badly to forbid it either though (or it is impossible to forbid it because it is impossible to distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" use of this - a good example is logoffski here) -> it will be put on the "to be changed eventually" list, but until then it is perfectly legal to use it. The devs did/do not classify it as exploit. For example instas or the nanofad.
C) they think it effects the game very badly, but again, cannot change it. It's so bad that they classify it as exploit. For example can spamming.
In short, "unintended use of game mechanics" case is either A) good/neutral, b) bad or c) forbidden (aka an exploit). What it is is decided for each case by the devs.
If it is c) they are usually rather fast to inform us of it. If it isn't c) it is perfectly legal to use it.
Quote: Until the devs accept it as a valid combat method or they openly state that it is indeed an exploit we are required by the rules to class it as an exploit.
And since it uses normal game mechanics the rules do not classify it as exploit. Case closed.
|
Nicholas Barker
Caldari Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:30:00 -
[88]
tbh all a crow can bump is an indy or a freighter, everything else has the threat of a web being fitted.
mwds, stabs, and inertial stabs all help with getting away from a bumping ship.
tbh the only things i bump are indys with WCS fitted, the only counter is having more people with me, or a nice good bump.
WCS < BUMPING < MWDS+INERTIAL STABS
you actually have things on your side that just require some actual player skill (not even many skillpoints) and you're still moaning probably because you can't be bothered to do it.
adapt or dine in hell! -------------------------------------
Am Orbitin' ur shi... i said orbit... ORBIT... no don't fly off in that direction |
Brady
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:38:00 -
[89]
Alot of peeps have bumped targets at one time or another because we can. Yet I feel this is very wrong and agree with the original post.
Just though I'd have my 2cents.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:42:00 -
[90]
at the moment bumping and nos/neuting is the only way of preventing titans and moms from escaping. When that is fixed, let's talk about fixing bumping, but not before thankyouverymuch. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |