| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 |
121. Thank You CCP, Goons & EVE Players in General - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
sabre906 wrote: Be a station trader and never undock! hi5s space is for fags
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 16:50:00
|
122. 16 bil + kill (plus Wolf BPO) - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
some kbs will actually parse out if they're bpos or bpcs now find a good kb and post the mail
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 16:41:00
|
123. No place for a high sec pos - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Disregard That wrote: 1) Declare war. 2) Shoot unpowered tower. 3) Profit. How is this not obvious to you, man? THIS IS A SPACE WAR GAME! What she said.
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 16:39:00
|
124. What was that about record number of subscribers ToriFrans ? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
hahaha what a ***
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 15:36:00
|
125. Thank You CCP, Goons & EVE Players in General - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Hey, welcome to actually "playing" Eve instead of just crying on the forums every time something doesn't go exactly as you wanted it to.
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 13:58:00
|
126. T2 manufacturing profits - changes and predictions - in Market Discussions [original thread]
What she said.
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.10 13:52:00
|
127. Other Alliances - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
nm
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 13:29:00
|
128. Dark Matter Bonds: #2 - 30B - in Market Discussions [original thread]
lol owned
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 13:15:00
|
129. Trying to get a grasp on the OTEC and technium supply to market - in Market Discussions [original thread]
Phill Esteen wrote: if Goons cut off the tech supply, the tech-foil hat industry will completely implode! /o\ /o\ /o\ lol general discussion would be a scrolling wall of psychotic and paranoid rage
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 12:36:00
|
130. Trying to get a grasp on the OTEC and technium supply to market - in Market Discussions [original thread]
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: I don't see what's game breaking about removing T2. It's not like it's always been in game to begin with. I don't see what would be chaos-inducing about removing oil. It's not like civilizations have had it to begin wi...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 05:48:00
|
131. So what happened to people doing Incursions?? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
KrakizBad wrote: We never cared about WH's, risk/reward was clearly in balance. Agreed. It seems pretty well accepted that the average wormhole shmoe takes more risk and puts in more effort to get his greater reward over his nullsec counter...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 04:39:00
|
132. Trying to get a grasp on the OTEC and technium supply to market - in Market Discussions [original thread]
As much as I detest "pubbie" hyperbole, I'm actually pretty confident that starving the economy entirely of tech would "break" the game for a substantial number of people. To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying any group could or would do this, n...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 03:56:00
|
133. Dark Matter Bonds: #2 - 30B - in Market Discussions [original thread]
rofl 2nd run at failed ponzi scheme
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 02:52:00
|
134. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Mortimer Civeri wrote: Oh yes, let's congradulate the OP for not spewing vitriol and wacky tinfoil hattery on these fine fourms, we will just leave off the fact his argument is baseless, ill conceived, tripe. hahaha ok ok, point conceded
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 02:27:00
|
135. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
The main point of my original post was to congratulate the OP on not spewing incoherent and inane conspiracies about goon devs and "the manitini", so I take part of the responsibility for using generally neutral terms in a more specific and relati...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 02:04:00
|
136. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
That was, in effect, my precise argument against it. However, that doesn't make the very fundamental concept of considering the impact on ganking of combat changes "unreasonable", only unjustified.
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 01:54:00
|
137. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Tippia wrote: using that as a reason to change a completely unrelated mechanics is completely senseless. Both "completely unrelated" and "senseless" are farcically hyperbolic terms to use. I personally don't think it's related enough for ...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 01:41:00
|
138. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: It's actually not because destroyers aren't balanced on their ability to gank. ...precisely. That's actually an argument against your own position. It's not "working as intended" because an impact on ganking had not...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 01:30:00
|
139. Time for ccp to tinker with the concord timer again - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
This is actually a pretty reasonable argument. With a gun to my head, I'd land on the side of "disagreeing", but at least it's valid and considered, which is utterly shocking for a nominally ant-ganking thread. That alone deserves commendation.
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 01:18:00
|
140. Carebear-Ganker Hatred is How Eve Thrives - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
A terrible example considering American partisanship and dysfunctional politics (like the actual mechanical functioning of government) are at a historical peak. Even if this weren't the case, power inevitably breeds corruption, which is the purpos...
- by SetrakDark - at 2012.06.09 01:14:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |