Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Fyrkraag
Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:06:00 -
[211]
I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being *able* to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality.
It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships.
Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:08:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Gevic Edited by: Gevic on 02/09/2008 16:56:35 Why are they changing the wardec system in favour of the defenders, when the defenders can already constantly corp hop, turning the system into a eve version of whack a mole in the first place? Or simply hop to an NPC corp and set up a private channel amongst themselves, avoiding the wardec system altogether?
/---snip----/
So really, how isn't all these changes (and the future changes that we can infer from this) pushing hisec towards blanket immunity from pvp anyway?
Yes, these (also brought up by Ki Ann, Malacanis and others) are legitimate points. However, think about it like this:
Until they provide a legitimate method of a defending corp to deal with its problems other than just fighting, how can they "force" players to stay in that corp?
Right now the attacker has all the advantages, with none of the disadvantages. They chose the target (hence knowing the danger), they control when and where the fight occours, they are under NO pretense to fight if they feel threatened, etc. The defender has only two real choices if the attacker did their job right; dock or corp hop. Hiring mercs isn't a "choise" simply because the cost of such endeavours. The deccing corp pays as little as 2m for a week of decs, Mercs average some 250m for the same week. Bit of a difference....
After the wardec changes go through, the defending corp may have options to use ITS strengths (faction standings, etc) to get out of the dec. In this case it is more player-friendly for CCP to put restrictions on jumping/shifting corps like they used to. -------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:09:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Aodha Khan
url to any CCP employee stating this?
There isn't one, if you mean Le Skunks statement about PVP being removed from high sec.
However, if you want to deliberately misinterpret a text that is a summary (and not a quote), this is probably what is being reffered to:
Quote: "Noah (CCP) believes that the current wardec system amounts to a pay-to-grief system, and that CCP is interested in making war declarations deeper by adding mechanics such as victory conditions that would eventually end wars.
Matt (CCP) stated that wardecs are necessary so corporations can attack each otherĘs logistic chains in Empire, but that there are often wars started without reason, simply to get random victims to gank and grief. The system should be balanced so that the first aspect is not hindered while the second aspect is deterred."
This has been further explained by devs in this thread. So no, PvP is not leaving high sec, it will just go through changes.
|
Ruze
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:10:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Fyrkraag
I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being *able* to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality.
It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships.
Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing.
Immersion is a big one for me, but many players seem to hate it. For example, I would prefer that CONCORD warp scrams and tows you back to a local outpost, to be held for a specific period of time, especially for minor crimes like theft and whatnot. But if you kill a pod, they should not only pop your ship, but pop your pod, too.
But 'immersion' is a hate word. Players don't want immersion. Heck, at a certain point, you can have too much immersion. I don't want to work in game, know what I mean? Or be forced to eat every few hours, that kind of thing.
Maybe if my character took care of some of those things himself, especially when I wasn't online, then sure.
Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File |
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:11:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Ruze
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:12:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity?
Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File |
Holy Lowlander
Aurora Acclivitous
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:13:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: E'Pock So basically, and let em see if i can sum this up right.
PvPs want the same "rights" as "carebears". PvPs are pretty much "Pirates" PvPs dont want to have any "Penelties" for acting like "Pirates" PvPs pretty much think by breaking the law they shouldnt loose something in return. If PvPs were in real life, instead of cyberspace, doing the same things they are doing in EVE would they be allowed to get insurance?....would they not be subject to the law?....if they want to be PvPers then I think its all fair for it to be harder on them and they need to stop whining about it. Look at the Pirates of old...were they not hunted down for crimes...were they not allowed into certain ports becasue of unlawful acts....get a grip people. You do the crime, and in this case being a pirate(PvPer) is a crime, you have to do the time. I keep hearing "i have to do this and i have to do that because i wanted to kill someone or steal something"....well even tho its a game there still has to be "rules"...get use to it....its called life and in here you chose to be a PvPer...no one made you do it...no one forced you to become one..so in essance the only person you can blame is yourself...not the makers of the game.
Do you need a clue? I'll contract it for you in Dodixie.
The law part ... I have a lovely series of sybols for you . C O N C O R D ... Its cyberspace , CCP aint the law they are the gods that just make the game better or ruin it , concord is the police and they do their job better as the police irl ...
Also all MMO's have a safe area or something .. Well not eve and that makes eve such an awsome game. Sure they should work a bit on suicide ganking etc. But don't remove non wardec pvp from highsec ....
can flipping miners , killing people cause you can , can baiting outside station .. and more. ITS A PART OF THE GAME.....its always bin and it should always be.
The problem with alot of people hiding in highsec is that they think its the end of the world when they get blown up . It isn't .... it really isn't ....
And about saying eve should be like real life (sounds strange doesn't it)... Why play a game if it should be matching with real life ... =/ .
the brilliant part about eve is that there are no safezones ... If someone really wants it and I mean really wants it he can just kill you. And that should not change ....
Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
|
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:13:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 02/09/2008 17:13:39
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity?
He's Hydra, all you need to know.
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:14:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Armoured C this game you actually have to use brains
But only enough to know how to whine on the forums effectively.
-- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Ki An
Gallente The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:14:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Threv Echandari
I'm Refering to this...
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
....the fact that the wardec system does exist and that what's being discussed is a modification to remove just the undesirable side-effects and to try and avoid making substantive changes to the feature in the meantime I think speaks volumes about how serious we are about enabling the type of gameplay permitted by the wardec system as used according to its above-described purpose. All that said though, the ability to easily create conditions where a player corp can arbitrarily bypass the penalties for non-consensual combat in highsec space is unjustifiable as a design goal (My Intepretation..Refers to Suicide Ganking), and indeed flatly contradicts core design elements (the existance of highsec space) for no good reason. This applies doubly so while the mechanics necessarily compel players to leave social structures (corporations) in order to avoid becoming victim to such mechanics. (My Intepretation..Refers to corp hopping)
Well, your interpretation is built on assumptions. My interpretation that what he means is what he says is built upon facts.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
|
Ki An
Gallente The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:16:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
When HYDRA gives up and goes back to Empire, I'm calling a Jihad on you. Should be in about a week.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:16:00 -
[222]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 02/09/2008 17:17:07 The amount of whining in this thread is pretty Epic.
CCP buff concord and sec penalties. So? Does any of you even know how much of a buff it is? What if Concord is only 10% faster?
Most people agree that regaining security statut was too easy. among other things, it rendered the statut of real pirate (-10.0) meaningless, by making it's consequences easy to bypass. Every wannabe gankbear could recover with just a few days of npcing. God forbid CCP should make it a bit harder! And you still don't know just how much harder it actually is...
"ZOMG! CCP killed pvp! Canceling my 12 accounts!1!!1!"
Guys, go buy yourselves a brain, seriously...
Then, the insurance thingie. The ONLY thing it does is increase the profitability ceiling. Right now you can turn a profit if a freighter carry more than 500M of stuff. You do realise, I hope, that the cargo is only about 2/3 of the ship's value? Suicide ganking is meant to punish moronic behaviour, not normal ones, like the one who put 300M of cargo in a T1 hauler, but you don't need insurance for that.
You're all overreacting so much it's damn fun to see you tear your hairs out of your skull. ------------------------------------------
|
Andreus Ixiris
Gallente Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:20:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Andreus Ixiris on 02/09/2008 17:21:00 Personally, I think (and understand that this is coming from a guy who makes his money running hi-sec level 4s, for reference) that you should still get at least minimal insurance from ships destroyed by CONCORD, and more importantly that they shouldn't warp-scramble you. I think CONCORD should be escapable (although successfully escaping should not neccessarily be EASY - it should be something you can brag about on the forums if you manage to pull it off) and if you do manage to escape them (i.e. reach low-sec with a GCF that was obtained in hi-sec) you should receive an additional security hit.
Basically, I think CONCORD should be a deterrent to hi-sec crime and not an impassable wall. I support the current changes to their lethality - warping in two cruisers and a battleship that kill your cap in a manner of seconds and deal out a significant amount of pain is a good idea. Warpscramming the offender is not. I think an attack by CONCORD should present you with a choice - stay and accept inevitable ship destruction by the police, but possibly achieve your objective, or abandon your objective and flee, but possibly retreat with your ship intact. For suicide gankers, the violence with CONCORD can dish out should make it very clear that they will lose their ship if they stay, and may not get the full insurance - but they can achieve their objective. Or, they can abandon their objective, but have a chance to keep their ship alive. -----
CEO, Mixed Metaphor Dance Commander |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:21:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Threv Echandari Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...)
The "who determines?" question is the big problem. This is what objectives for example might try to tackle (although not necessarily "solve") - conceptually, if you can find some way such that the players involved can agree on what would be a "reasonable" objective and then terminate the war once that objective is met, then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system.
Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. To be honest, I've not seen anything (anywhere!) to suggest that it might be even conceptually possible to actually eliminate grief play mechanically in a multiplayer game, at least not until we have AI systems that can exercise reliable judgment at a similar level to humans (and at that point I'm not sure it counts as "mechanical" per se); the best that can be done is to state goals and then work towards them with the hope of mitigating the potential for undesired gameplay and trying to avoid wherever possible restricting legitimate activity in the pursuit of said goals.
I'd love a wardec system which offered no additional avenues for griefers in hisec space. Do I think we'll ever get one? Right now I'm not massively confident. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Of course not. The reality is that we've got a highly desirable system that includes some undesirable side-effects, and it's unclear whether or not there's a completely successful way to excise the latter while maintaining the former. If we can find a modification which reduces the grief potential while not impacting the war system's primary goals, it'll probably get implemented. If not, for the time being we're holding the course, and the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further.
|
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:22:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity?
Okay, since you didn't understand what I meant (or rather pretended not to), I'll spell it out. Let me know if I go too fast for ya:
Since he's threatening CCP by griefing players out of game if they continue to protect players from grief itself I found it rather closely paralleling terrorism. Kind of like when someone says "He pulled a Kameekazee!". They're not implying he just crashed a plane into a ship. It means they did something crazy and suicidal, figuratively speaking.
But I suspect you know exactly what I mean and are just trying to blow it out of proportion. Good luck with that, though :).
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Ki An
Gallente The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:22:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Shadowsword The amount of whining in this thread is pretty Epic.
CCP buff concord and sec penalties. So? Does any how you even know how much of a buff it is? What if Concord is only 10% faster?
We do know how much of a buff it is. It's right there in the patch notes. Reports from SiSi reinforces this knowledge. CONCORD responsetime has been halved.
Originally by: Shadowsword
Most people agree that regaining security statut was too easy. among other things, it rendered the statut of real pirate (-10.0) meaningless, by making it's consequences easy to bypass.
No, most people didn't agree with that. Some carebears thought that was a fact when it clearly wasn't. The ease of sec status regaining was only ever applicable to 0.0 alliances. Everyone else did not have anything remotely categorized as an easy time in regaining sec status.
Originally by: Shadowsword
Every wannabe gankbear could recover with just a few days of npcing.
No, they couldn't. Please think before you post.
Originally by: Shadowsword
God forbid CCP should make it a bit harder! And you still don't know just how much harder it actually is...
We know exactly how much harder it is. Don't you read dev blogs and patch notes?
Originally by: Shadowsword
"ZOMG! CCP killed pvp! Canceling my 12 accounts!1!!1!"
Guys, go buy yourselves a brain, seriously...
Fairly ironic, don't you think?
Originally by: Shadowsword
Then, the insurance thingie. The ONLY thing it does is increase the profitability ceiling. Right now you can turn a profit if a freighter carry more than 500M of stuff. You do realise, I hope, that the cargo is only about 2/3 of the ship's value? Suicide ganking is meant to punish moronic behaviour, not normal ones, like the one who put 300M of cargo in a T1 hauler, but you don't need insurance for that.
Run the numbers (and for God's sake, look at the patch notes first) and you will see that the changes makes freighters in high sec 99.9% safe. The only possible way of losing a freighter is if you are IDed as running logistics for a 0.0 alliance, and that alliance's enemies figure it's worth putting around 4 billions on the line in order to harrass said logistics.
Originally by: Shadowsword
You're all overreacting so much it's damn fun to see you tear your hairs out of your skull.
No, we're underreacting!!! How 'bout that?
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Fyrkraag
Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:25:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Fyrkraag
I like to think of game immersion as important. Not being *able* to do something in highsec seriously damages the game's credibility. It is complete fantasy, but they tossed in some physics for us to help supplement that fantasy's quality.
It is more believable that CONCORD just blows you up than to suddenly have your targeting computer rendered inoperable, a security feature most pilots of mechanic and electronic skills would like to think they could have bypassed if they're installing rigs and whatever else on their ships.
Coming from other games where combat is completely prohibited in "safe areas," I found this aspect of Eve to be delightfully refreshing.
Immersion is a big one for me, but many players seem to hate it. For example, I would prefer that CONCORD warp scrams and tows you back to a local outpost, to be held for a specific period of time, especially for minor crimes like theft and whatnot. But if you kill a pod, they should not only pop your ship, but pop your pod, too.
But 'immersion' is a hate word. Players don't want immersion. Heck, at a certain point, you can have too much immersion. I don't want to work in game, know what I mean? Or be forced to eat every few hours, that kind of thing.
Maybe if my character took care of some of those things himself, especially when I wasn't online, then sure.
Obviously, there has to be balance. :)
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Shadowsword
CCP buff concord and sec penalties. So? Does any of you even know how much of a buff it is? What if Concord is only 10% faster?
IIRC the aim was to make the ships from Concord tougher but they will also arrive in lesser force than before (fewer ships). I was under the impression that this was in order to reduce the strain on the nodes Concord potentially creates and that the responses in themselves would be basically the same net strength as before.
Convenient to leave that second part out if someone want to whine.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 -
[229]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale I don't know why I'm typing all this because no matter how many disclaimers are added, I know someone's going to quote this partially and out of context at some point anyway and claim the sky is falling, but at least this way I feel like I've made an effort".
And then you ignore them or tell them to STFU.
Thanks for the reply it's always good to know the reasoning behind things like this whether individuals agree or not.
Any chance of you nagging someone to make a statement on the level 4 situation in one of that subjects threads? It would be nice to know the Devs position on the issues presented, even if no action is currently planned, and would save a lot of useless bickering.
You can't please everyone, but you can let everyone know whether your intentions for the game a going to please them or not.
|
Ruze
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:26:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Again, thank you Greyscale for making it clear.
Also, until the war dec nerfs goes through I will make it my mission to grief as many players out of the game as possible. Just as a small sign of protest.
Terrorism at its best.
"Let us grief who we want when we want. Or else we'll just grief even more".
Real mature. Just real mature.
You just called someone a terrorist, and then you are going to argue their level of maturity?
Okay, since you didn't understand what I meant (or rather pretended not to), I'll spell it out. Let me know if I go too fast for ya:
Since he's threatening CCP by griefing players out of game if they continue to protect players from grief itself I found it rather closely paralleling terrorism. Kind of like when someone says "He pulled a Kameekazee!". They're not implying he just crashed a plane into a ship. It means they did something crazy and suicidal, figuratively speaking.
But I suspect you know exactly what I mean and are just trying to blow it out of proportion. Good luck with that, though :).
I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'.
It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made.
Ruze Ashkor'Murkon Security File |
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:27:00 -
[231]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Threv Echandari Killing in a reasonable in-game context is.. you have to have a better reason than "because I want to" but who determines What a "Good Reason" is..(hint the initials start with C.C...)
The "who determines?" question is the big problem. This is what objectives for example might try to tackle (although not necessarily "solve") - conceptually, if you can find some way such that the players involved can agree on what would be a "reasonable" objective and then terminate the war once that objective is met, then you're going some way towards mitigating the amount of undesirable gameplay potential inherent in the system.
Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. To be honest, I've not seen anything (anywhere!) to suggest that it might be even conceptually possible to actually eliminate grief play mechanically in a multiplayer game, at least not until we have AI systems that can exercise reliable judgment at a similar level to humans (and at that point I'm not sure it counts as "mechanical" per se); the best that can be done is to state goals and then work towards them with the hope of mitigating the potential for undesired gameplay and trying to avoid wherever possible restricting legitimate activity in the pursuit of said goals.
I'd love a wardec system which offered no additional avenues for griefers in hisec space. Do I think we'll ever get one? Right now I'm not massively confident. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Of course not. The reality is that we've got a highly desirable system that includes some undesirable side-effects, and it's unclear whether or not there's a completely successful way to excise the latter while maintaining the former. If we can find a modification which reduces the grief potential while not impacting the war system's primary goals, it'll probably get implemented. If not, for the time being we're holding the course, and the wardec system's sitting on an illustrious list with lowsec balance, sovereignty, smuggling & bounty-hunting, cloaking, local chat and all the other things that the company has acknowledged are not working as well as we'd like but are waiting on a solid solution before they're adjusted further.
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Ki An
Gallente The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:30:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Malcanis I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
He's not going to reply to that, Malcanis. Greyscale's posts have so far only served to further reinforce our view of what is going on with the game.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Locke DieDrake
Human Information Virus
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:30:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
The first day of beta.
______________________________________________ Goon FC(08/12/06):"its a trap" "that thing is fully operational" |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:32:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Malcanis
I have just one question: when did nonconsensual PvP become griefing?
The instant Ki An and others state "If someone drops from the corp I hound them through all other corps they join, war deccing every one". By definition, even CCP's in the EULA, that is griefing.
So now you can blame Ki An too -------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so.
|
Duke Daniels
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 -
[235]
ahah look at all that backpedaling and damage control. someone spoke a little more than they should...
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 -
[236]
To all the whineage in this thread!
If you don't like it QUIT! And contract your things to me, thank you. Otherwise just shut up, as you're not achieving anything but making asses of yourselves.
Why do you miss suicide ganks so much in high sec anyway? Were you ENTIRELY reliant on them before the patch? was this your ONLY game play?
As it has been pointed out on the forums for the 1111!!!11...th time.. EvE changes. Adapt or die.. goes for everyone in EvE.
What bugs me most is that you haven't even been that much participating in Suicide ganking as your big mouths make it out to be.. so what is it then? A lot of spare time or just need to vent b/c of how hard your lives are?
Keep at it, sorry to waste precious space on your way to the 11th + page of whines...
now to teh cheese..
|
Ki An
Gallente The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:33:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
The instant Ki An and others state "If someone drops from the corp I hound them through all other corps they join, war deccing every one". By definition, even CCP's in the EULA, that is griefing.
So now you can blame Ki An too
Actually, according to (old) CCP, that isn't griefing. We have been told it's ok. Apparently these (new) devs are going to change that.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:35:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Ruze I just think it's funny that, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting others and implying stupidity on the part of those who disagree with you, you still feel superior enough to attempt to imply that another poster is somehow 'less mature'.
It needed clarification, so that those who may be reading this, but who have not had the pleasure of opposing your particular viewpoint, aren't fooled by the statements you made.
Pot and kettle come to mind.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:35:00 -
[239]
This guy actually gets it
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:36:00 -
[240]
Personally nothing has changed for me in EvE, and this change is a response to an overused and lame (don't know why you call it PvP in high sec) tactic.
Here.. keep trolling and blah blah blabbing.. nao..
/Adjusts comfortably headphones and enjoys the rest of the cheese...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |