Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 |
121. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: RubyPorto wrote: "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon Is it "with which" or "upon which"? I keep quoting it as "upon which". Am I doing it wr...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 21:23:00
|
122. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: Look, ganking incursion fleets is a different discussion. Personally, I don't think its effective or viable, and it certainly wont solve the problem in my OP. If anyone else has alternative solutions to my proposal, which wi...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 20:26:00
|
123. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
James Baboli wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: No...we were talking about highsec. In lowsec the issue is that no one even wants to run incursions because fielding a 40 man battleship fleet is like sending PL a personal invitati...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 19:39:00
|
124. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: No...we were talking about highsec. In lowsec the issue is that no one even wants to run incursions because fielding a 40 man battleship fleet is like sending PL a personal invitation to come and roflstomp you. Fixing lowsec...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 19:33:00
|
125. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
James Baboli wrote: Except no one but the boxers is willing to open that particular section of Pandora's Box, and they keep hesitating. If anyone has the resources to do much of the shooting, I'm willing to help with the intel so long as while ...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 19:26:00
|
126. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
James Baboli wrote: It is much more the fact that the fleet doctrines are designed to resist gank attempts (and thus don't shoot back, as this would deny the target reps without the logi going suspect) and the people doing it are pretty good. T...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 19:15:00
|
127. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: Can you inflict enough gank losses on a 40 man (or for a mom site 80 man) battleship fleet with 10+ logi on grid to actually deter doing mom sites? Absolutely not. Have you tried? Didn't think so. Gank every MOM fleet's...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 18:18:00
|
128. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: Just a brief response to some of the points here 1. I stated pretty clearly already that the hotdrop would be on the way to the system or next door to it. The fact remains that no one is doing the 3 nullsec incursions right...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 15:25:00
|
129. 2nd Time This Week .... - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Shrug.....whatever. Numbers don't lie. ... but you do.
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 15:19:00
|
130. [IDEA] Vertical Channel Tabs - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
What in the goddamn hell is a good idea doing in F&I? Burn the witch! I would suggest allowing multiple rows of horizontal tabs in a window, rather than putting them on the side. More channels, less filling +1
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 06:50:00
|
131. 2nd Time This Week .... - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
baltec1 wrote: The internet. It's running out of tubes.
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 06:45:00
|
132. Incursion Mom Popping Solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Why is this a problem? Sounds like player freedom being exercised to me. Veers doesn't like player freedom. Veers Belvar wrote: minimal consequences. Only because no players step up to provide those conseq...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 05:07:00
|
133. DISCUSSION about productioncost going to CCP - in Science and Industry [original thread]
Bronson Hughes wrote: SpikeyWelsh wrote: Still MY STATION , never had agents before. Same with pos construction, MY POS , MY array...... My point is , as long as it is owned by you ill find it so that every isk made in the station should g...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.10 01:58:00
|
134. Sticky:GM Response On Bumping - in Crime and Punishment [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: 2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position. No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "d...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.09 23:35:00
|
135. Sticky:GM Response On Bumping - in Crime and Punishment [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. And yet you want CONCORD response to rely on hypothetical *future* behavio...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.09 22:23:00
|
136. bomb skills - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
PotatoOverdose wrote: So...27 titans from the same organization blow up a single carrier.....that's exactly the type of exclusivity I was describing. The titans were exclusive to a particular entity. If DD's were available on a cheaper subcapit...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.09 08:56:00
|
137. bomb skills - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
PotatoOverdose wrote: Tbh, I think eve could use some more diverse AoE mechanics. N+1 is a problem today in eve that contributes much to the bipolar stagnation with which we are all familiar. People don't enjoy loosing, so they clump up in larg...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.09 06:36:00
|
138. Character transfer limits on accounts. - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Imogine wrote: Lady Spank wrote: Imogine wrote: Schmata Bastanold wrote: Why? Some could argue it would stabilize the toon transfer market and restrict exploitation. How is it unstable? How is it exploited? Unstable as in char...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.08 23:23:00
|
139. Sticky:GM Response On Bumping - in Crime and Punishment [original thread]
Veers Belvar wrote: What do you think about this kill? https://zkillboard.com/kill/41059941/ Even with nanos still 200k hp (not ehp), 30 gank ships used (including BCs), and a minimal drop. From an Isk perspective that's a really unusual kil...
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.08 21:38:00
|
140. Refining changes, and you! - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Torneach Structor wrote: Wait, was this thread about refining or the nature of life and death? I seem to have lost track somewhere along the way... It's September. Philosophy 101 is in full swing.
- by RubyPorto - at 2014.09.08 18:28:00
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |