Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
lilol' me
Retribution Holdings Corp Retribution.
72
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 15:52:02 -
[151] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I already went over the peculiar nature of this in a previous post.
Making cargo scanning a suspect offense in HS, doesnt upset that.
Why should this happen? Ganking is already at its lowest point in history as is highsec pvp content in general. Frankly we should be expanding scanning more not punishing more. Bring in more content such as players hunting for drugs and such. The change should happen, because it rationalizes the underlying mechanics. Cargo scanning is an invasive action. You intrusively pry into the hold of another player. This should not occur without a reciprocal cost. Currently, there is none. Having a scanning ship on site, does not in and of itself constitute a cost, because the scanning ship is not currently implicated in any way. They can scan all the ships they want, intrude i to their holds, at no cost or risk. Cargo-scanning is not mandatory for suicide ganking Its just a convenience to pick out lucrative targets. If cargo scanning issued a suspect flag, they can still continue scanning as many holds as they wish, unless so eone eliminates them. We all know that cargo scanning ships are implict in the suicide gank operational system. They are part of the suicide gank team effort, as much as the attack ships, and the loot pickup ships. Th attack ships get rekt by CONCORD, the loot pickup teams go suspect. So too should the cargo scanning elements go suspect.
perhaps cargo scanning shouldnt be so detailed and accurate rather a bit fuzzy. then you make a decision whether its worth ganking or not
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
416
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:06:15 -
[152] - Quote
Eve is a game all about player interaction and you can't deny carebears mostly interact, with each other at least. Which means more players in game shooting things. I don't see why highsec can't be a kiddie pool since quite a large number of people go for that, however it should be obvious that the big money, good ships, and deep mechanics are in the more risky higher value parts of space. When I started you could barely make enough or a battleship in hs but people in null were flying T2 everything, command ships, HACs, recons, etc.
I'd like to see highsec income nerfed into the ground so that it has little impact on the rest of eve. If players want to sit in safety under the protection of concord, how can they hope to defend themselves without that protection, they'd feel the need to join a null corp where they can have a bigger impact if that's what they want. Eve is supposedly a sandbox with room for everyone, yet we continue asking new players to change their expectations to what eve actually is, why can't it have room for everything?
If higher players aren't flying around in such valuable ships, they're surely less likely to be chosen as a gank target.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3645
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:10:04 -
[153] - Quote
The only thing you will change is making this mechanik unavailable for people who have a problem going suspect. And no you will not need to get a new omega account, every account has 3 char slots and you don't need your ganking char until you scanned something worthwile.
Fun fact: I don't scann mining ships anymore because more often than not it spooks them and they usually dock up. Progress obviously and another victory for the New Order.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:52:08 -
[154] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Combat probes are more than core probes, they are made with the goal of hunting down other ships. Its the same as scanning a ship, both are pvp activities just with slightly differnt goals. One lets you find a players ship even though they don't want you to and the other scans a players ship even though they dont want you to.
It can also lead to other problems such as the bloakade runner now has. CCP adding the unscannable bonus to them did not make them safer, it put more risk on them because the ganks went from targeted to random.
You can already counter the scanner.
Yes it is.
1) Combat probes are not tthe same as cargo scanning. They are furthermore entirely different skill trees. Combat probes deliver information on location at great range. Cargo scanning is a matter of kms. Their function is unique and unlike the other. Combat probes, especially in HS, are used for finding mission ships onsite, at great range. Cargo scanning, in HS, is used almost exclusively for the purpose of identifying fat targets, onsite. (And scanning ghost/relic/data cans)
Invasively scanning the contents of a ships private property, is different from ascertaining a ships current location. D-scan already makes ascertainment of position possible, albeit without warp-to option.
2) Blockade runners remain unscannable in my proposal, as they are now. Zero change.
3) Double packing, flooding cargo with trash, are ways of impairing data to a cargo scanner. But they are niot an issue of cargo scanners themselves.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Reiisha
1014
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:54:33 -
[155] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:baltec1 wrote:Reiisha wrote:Suicide ganking and gatecamping are not a problem whatsoever.
The real problem lies in the unlimited use of alts to sidestep all consequences.
However, that is hilariously difficult to even think about fixing and most people are so ensorceled by the alt meta (which has existed since 2003) that they will defend it to the death, despite the massive problems alts bring to the systems currently in place - Let alone that the game has been quasi designed around the use of alts over the years.
You can bet that if gatecampers and suicide gankers couldn't use alts anymore, they'd be hypocritically crying havoc over how unfair the game is to them once they actually have to deal with the consequences of being at -10.
Sadly, this will likely not happen for a long time, given how critical alts are for nullsec - Even if just to keep the game from being too boring (unless there are people who want to play a fulltime cyno character for example). That would hit miners and mission runners just as hard if not harder. Yeah, going to second this. Removing alts from the game is just a generally bad idea. Also clearly Reiisha has never heard of exchanging tags for sec status. This would actually impact gankers *less* than almost any other profession since sec status is actually pretty easy to buy back or grind back if you know what you're doing. It's even less costly if you don't bother popping pods, since that's a way larger sec status hit than just blowing up a ship.
As i said, i'm aware of this. Alts became 'the meta' very early on in the game's lifecycle, and all sorts of other mechanics have been added around the use of alts .
I'd say that alts are a very messy solution to a lot of problems the game has.
If mining and mission running is bad without alts, improve it so it isn't.
Personally i've always been against the tag thing for sec status anyway - It was a band-aid fix to a problem that never actually existed.
None of this takes away from the fact that alts allow you to circumvent a lot of mechanics and ignoring a lot of otherwise very effective and meaningful consequences. They shouldn't have been necessary for anything in EVE, but they have become a huge financial crutch for CCP.
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:58:17 -
[156] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Its a very soft change. Wouldnt affect mission ship suicide ganking largely at all, as you are more concerned with the modules which are unscannable, rather than cargo contents. Wouldnt make suicide ganking impossible along trade lines either, just less certain of their profits.
There is a thing called a Ship Scanner that does exactly that (scan mods) and work on the same principle of that of a Cargo Scanner. Also by your reasonning, just looking into someone's jettisoned cargo or wreck should trigger a Suspect Timer, as it is prying into someone's privacy...
A wreck is unoccupied, and a result of player action. If the wreck is a result of legal engagement, its contents are available to its destroyer.
There is a difference between looking i to an u occupied wreck, and peeking into the cargo/module hold of an active occupied ship.
Jettisoned cargo still belongs to the owner (albeit perhaps that too, shouldnt).
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:04:17 -
[157] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: The change should happen, because it rationalizes the underlying mechanics.
Cargo scanning is an invasive action. You intrusively pry into the hold of another player. This should not occur without a reciprocal cost. Currently, there is none. Having a scanning ship on site, does not in and of itself constitute a cost, because the scanning ship is not currently implicated in any way. They can scan all the ships they want, intrude i to their holds, at no cost or risk.
So we should do the same with combat probes too then? Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cargo-scanning is not mandatory for suicide ganking Its just a convenience to pick out lucrative targets.
How else are you going to know what the hauler is carrying to make the call on if it is profitable or not? Its fundamental to ganking. Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cargo scanning issued a suspect flag, they can still continue scanning as many holds as they wish, unless so eone eliminates them.
We all know that cargo scanning ships are implict in the suicide gank operational system. They are part of the suicide gank team effort, as much as the attack ships, and the loot pickup ships. Th attack ships get rekt by CONCORD, the loot pickup teams go suspect. So too should the cargo scanning elements go suspect.
You have yet to answer why ganking needs yet another nerf. Ill answer your last question.
There are several reasons that rely on a few facts of life:
1 EvE is a game not a lifestyle 2 For every PvPr there are around 10 times more none PvPrs 3 Is classified 4 The wants of the many outweigh the pathalogical psychological hystereological needs of a few bullied nerds 5 Sometimes your ingame actions warrant a good stern real life talking to
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3646
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:07:17 -
[158] - Quote
How stern? 'I will quit and send my dog after you'-stern?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
416
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:32:34 -
[159] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:hystereological Invented word detected
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18687
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:50:22 -
[160] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) Combat probes are not tthe same as cargo scanning. They are furthermore entirely different skill trees. Combat probes deliver information on location at great range. Cargo scanning is a matter of kms. Their function is unique and unlike the other. Combat probes, especially in HS, are used for finding mission ships onsite, at great range. Cargo scanning, in HS, is used almost exclusively for the purpose of identifying fat targets, onsite. (And scanning ghost/relic/data cans)
Both are used in ganking, the same arguments you are using asast cargo scanners can be used on ship scanners and combat probes.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) Blockade runners remain unscannable in my proposal, as they are now. Zero change.
You missed my point, BR have been made less safe because of the unscannable change.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) Double packing, flooding cargo with trash, are ways of impairing data to a cargo scanner. But they are niot an issue of cargo scanners themselves.
They are a direct counter everyone can already use, there is no need to further nerf ganking. It simply isn't needed.
|
|
Hazel TuckerTS
University of Caille Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:53:47 -
[161] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:The only thing you will change is making this mechanik unavailable for people who have a problem going suspect. And no you will not need to get a new omega account, every account has 3 char slots and you don't need your ganking char until you scanned something worthwile.
Fun fact: I don't scann mining ships anymore because more often than not it spooks them and they usually dock up. Progress obviously and another victory for the New Order.
code is dead
I win...always
code can lick my kevin schwantz at high noon in jita.
code ALWAYS LOSES. Dead, gone and soon to be forgotten.
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 18:05:22 -
[162] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:hystereological Invented word detected Its an alternative word...
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1291
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 19:43:58 -
[163] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Is ganking good for EVE? Probably not? What are you basing this opinion on? CCP has specifically contradicted this idea in the past. I think Ganking is very good for the game, and these anti-ganker types prove it. First, it creates danger. Danger (whether people want to admit it or not) is why we are playing a video game about space, even though they pretend that what they really want is Comfort. Thing is, if people hated 'ganking', why do they keep playing here instead of the many MMOs that restrict that kind of behavior (even space theme'd games like Star Trek Online and now, Elite:Dangerous with it's private community mode)? Secondly, it helps EVE by giving certain types of people something to hate. That's where these anti ganker folks come in, without ganking , would they just go on their merry way? Nope, they'd find something else to hate, because they need something to hate, it's part of their personalities. Danger and something to hate, those are things that bind people to EVE Online, it's why these people don't go play other games as much as they play EVE despite the fact that all they do is complain about EVE and about how horrible 'griefers' are. It's why I don't hate gank ers even though when in high sec I take many precautions against the practice. I don't just need something to hate to feel like I'm alive, I'm happy killing NPCs (which i do hate, down with Sansha and his BS). Also, TBH I appreciate the fact that gankers exist because in addition to riling up the kind of whiney, entitled, cluless players that I personally have no love for, they also enrage the holier than thou ,crusading, "will someone please think of the children" spaceship SJWs that I honestly cannot stand (I don't need to hate them to enjoy the game...but I'll admit, it's a nice bonus). So right there, gankers are improving my EVE experience
This is one of the great posts of all time. You're even carful with your words here. CCP hasn't proven that ganking is good for retention; it has shown that there's a correlation between ganking and retention.
But you bring some life to that correlation and some good ideas about why it exists. This is gold.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1534
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 19:52:16 -
[164] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:hystereological Invented word detected Its an alternative word... Just like your facts as well.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27789
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:03:33 -
[165] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:hystereological Invented word detected Its an alternative word... Just like your facts as well. What do you expect from a well known liar?
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Salvos Rhoska
2264
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:30:06 -
[166] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:hystereological Invented word detected Its an alternative word... Just like your facts as well. What do you expect from a well known liar?
....
Dont do this.
Jonah, you atleast produce content, though I disagree with much of it.
Shae, howevevr is an outright recognized troll with nothing of value offered.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
320
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:35:20 -
[167] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote: Invented word detected
Its an alternative word... Just like your facts as well. What do you expect from a well known liar? .... Dont do this. Jonah, you atleast produce content, though I disagree with much of it. Shae, howevevr is an outright recognized troll with nothing of value offered.
I'd have to disagree with that. Funny how that goes, eh.
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:35:59 -
[168] - Quote
Glathull wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Is ganking good for EVE? Probably not? What are you basing this opinion on? CCP has specifically contradicted this idea in the past. I think Ganking is very good for the game, and these anti-ganker types prove it. First, it creates danger. Danger (whether people want to admit it or not) is why we are playing a video game about space, even though they pretend that what they really want is Comfort. Thing is, if people hated 'ganking', why do they keep playing here instead of the many MMOs that restrict that kind of behavior (even space theme'd games like Star Trek Online and now, Elite:Dangerous with it's private community mode)? Secondly, it helps EVE by giving certain types of people something to hate. That's where these anti ganker folks come in, without ganking , would they just go on their merry way? Nope, they'd find something else to hate, because they need something to hate, it's part of their personalities. Danger and something to hate, those are things that bind people to EVE Online, it's why these people don't go play other games as much as they play EVE despite the fact that all they do is complain about EVE and about how horrible 'griefers' are. It's why I don't hate gank ers even though when in high sec I take many precautions against the practice. I don't just need something to hate to feel like I'm alive, I'm happy killing NPCs (which i do hate, down with Sansha and his BS). Also, TBH I appreciate the fact that gankers exist because in addition to riling up the kind of whiney, entitled, cluless players that I personally have no love for, they also enrage the holier than thou ,crusading, "will someone please think of the children" spaceship SJWs that I honestly cannot stand (I don't need to hate them to enjoy the game...but I'll admit, it's a nice bonus). So right there, gankers are improving my EVE experience This is one of the great posts of all time. You're even carful with your words here. CCP hasn't proven that ganking is good for retention; it has shown that there's a correlation between ganking and retention. But you bring some life to that correlation and some good ideas about why it exists. This is gold. Since the data was obtained from characters of 14 days or less the data is worthless. Characters 14 days or less are not the primary targets of gankers. Losing a frig is not going to make someone quit while losing a battleship or freighter might.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
416
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 21:29:02 -
[169] - Quote
The "problem" if it's willing to be accepted as such is the amount of dps a destroyer can put out. To be honest it's a little broken. A destroyer like the catalyst can get near battleship levels of dps while having no tank. They are the only class of T1 ships to be so out of line; T1 ships have a fairly linear dps progression.
I suggest that destroyers in their initial concept lacked a focus on how they would be used against bigger ships. A destroyer is meant to be a frig killer, and with 7/8 guns it normally is very good in that role, but the amount of guns pushes it's dps way too high. For example the dps difference between cruisers and battlecruisers is fairly small but a BC will still beat a cruiser any day. I propose destroyers are looked at, the amount of guns reduced to say 4/5 and those slots given to mids and lows. This would keep a destroyer with more firepower than a frig, and give it a more solid tank too, keeping it in it's role as a frig counter. Ideally this would bring destroyer dps more in line with the other t1 hulls. The effect of this is it would take more catalysts for a gank, or bigger ships, skewing the cost of a gank on larger ships.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27789
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 21:33:11 -
[170] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dont do this. Fair enough, I wasn't going to go beyond the comment anyway. I learnt that lesson recently with yourself, it drives things off topic and tbh that's not in the interests of anybody.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 21:47:27 -
[171] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:The "problem" if it's willing to be accepted as such is the amount of dps a destroyer can put out. To be honest it's a little broken. A destroyer like the catalyst can get near battleship levels of dps while having no tank. They are the only class of T1 ships to be so out of line; T1 ships have a fairly linear dps progression.
I suggest that destroyers in their initial concept lacked a focus on how they would be used against bigger ships. A destroyer is meant to be a frig killer, and with 7/8 guns it normally is very good in that role, but the amount of guns pushes it's dps way too high. For example the dps difference between cruisers and battlecruisers is fairly small but a BC will still beat a cruiser any day. I propose destroyers are looked at, the amount of guns reduced to say 4/5 and those slots given to mids and lows. This would keep a destroyer with more firepower than a frig, and give it a more solid tank too, keeping it in it's role as a frig counter. Ideally this would bring destroyer dps more in line with the other t1 hulls. The effect of this is it would take more catalysts for a gank, or bigger ships, skewing the cost of a gank on larger ships. They initially had something like 50% reduced rate of fire to make up for the 8 guns meaning itd take them twice as long as it does now to gank.
Why it was removed im not sure
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
NofriendNoLifeStilPostin
State War Academy Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 21:47:43 -
[172] - Quote
suicide ganking really has become ridiculous and is a big part of why EVE is such a joke of a game. Why doesn't risk vs reward apply to high sec pirates? Its even used as a griefer tactic since the costs/risks are so negligible. |
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 22:42:41 -
[173] - Quote
NofriendNoLifeStilPostin wrote:suicide ganking really has become ridiculous and is a big part of why EVE is such a joke of a game. Why doesn't risk vs reward apply to high sec pirates? Its even used as a griefer tactic since the costs/risks are so negligible. This is the result of CCP failing to keep the player base separate from the development team. When developers and players become friends and you start recruiting players as devs, you have ex-devs leading some of the richest and most powerful organizations in game and you create a system designed to favor those same dev friends, ex-devs (CSM) you'll have a system that only considers one mindset.
Thats why we had devs giving out T2 BPOs, dropping half trillion isk worth of items in PLs system and taking weeks to ban tards like Erotica. Its why we have devs who cant fix 10 year old broken systems but who are happy to drop broken ships like T3Ds into an already imbalanced array of ships.
CCP dug a hole years ago and ended up in China they dug so deep.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Chopper Rollins
Far Beyond Triggered
1788
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 23:05:09 -
[174] - Quote
Oh, it's all a conspiracy. Makes perfect sense if you're a weak but hostile type. Also removes all agency and responsibility from you. Not a problem with the game though, which has been shown and explained repeatedly.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2529
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 23:27:50 -
[175] - Quote
Chopper Rollins wrote:Oh, it's all a conspiracy. Makes perfect sense if you're a weak but hostile type. Also removes all agency and responsibility from you. Not a problem with the game though, which has been shown and explained repeatedly.
Speak of the devils. Not a conspiracy, an inexperienced company that failed to keep a professional distance between itself and its playerbase.
A quick google search is all you need to see devs and players representing organizations who have consistently controlled EvE, players who became devs, players who are devs. There is even video of a player urging another player to kill themselves and devs and other "important" players laughing in the background? Like a link?
Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.
CSM is a scam.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27792
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 23:31:07 -
[176] - Quote
I wonder if Dinsdale knows that his stash is gone?
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Chopper Rollins
Far Beyond Triggered
1789
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 23:46:16 -
[177] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.
CSM is a scam.
None of this is true or relevant. Classic Ziona.
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2530
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:04:29 -
[178] - Quote
Chopper Rollins wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.
CSM is a scam.
None of this is true or relevant. All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27795
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:18:40 -
[179] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Chopper Rollins wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.
CSM is a scam.
None of this is true or relevant. All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do. IMHO CCP are trying to stay as true as possible to a game that they want to play, and more importantly the game that they set out to make. It just so happens that the people that you're constantly disparaging want to play the same game that CCP staff do, I do too, and I'm a non combatant.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Infinity Ziona
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2530
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 00:35:09 -
[180] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Chopper Rollins wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Fact is the devs know that the way the CSM vote is rigged ensures only the big blocs get elected yet its not changed to ensure all players are represented.
CSM is a scam.
None of this is true or relevant. All of it is true and its relevent because its the reason they ignore the majority of players who dont gank or fap over sov / null and pander to the tiny majority who do. IMHO CCP are trying to stay as true as possible to a game that they want to play, and more importantly the game that they set out to make. It just so happens that the people that you're constantly disparaging want to play the same game that CCP staff want to make and play; I do too, and I'm a non combatant. Comedy gold.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |