Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Haulie Berry
137
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:Simply ask and you shall receive:
1. What about this do you perceive to be a problem for the game?
Well for me personally. I have a pretty high pressure job. Some times I just want to set down and veg a bit. Mining hauling etc, is pretty relaxing for me. I actually enjoy it, I have been on a bit of a break from the blobs in 0.0, I'm heading back out in the next few weeks. Ok now, when I'm vegging, I get the bang bang bang, booom. then the Ha Ha Ha Haaa. Got you. Kinda spoils it for me. Know what I mean. Well I'm pretty certain this lot will never concede this simple point.
What you just described is a personal problem, though - a problem for *you*. Not a problem for the game.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
711
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:28:00 -
[32] - Quote
Those making an economical point about Hulkageddon should give a look at the price of Hulks.
It's sinking. 280 million and still going down.
Just sharing this for your information, dudes. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:30:00 -
[33] - Quote
I agree this just isn't my game any more. I concede that completely. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
992
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
Hey! Hey, hey, hey, hey, stop right there, criminal scum.
You talk about a sandbox, and then in the same breath you use the phrase "ripples in the pond." Do you not see the corporation name? You are infringing on my personal gameplay style, which is to mix metaphors.
Oh, also, like a hyperactive quadroplegic, this thread will go nowhere fast. Mane 614
|
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:52:00 -
[35] - Quote
I have yet to see anyone flying a hulk say that the hulk should be able to out PvP a PvP ship. Again, for the reading impaired let me repeat this again. Noone thinks a hulk should be able to out PvP a PvP ship.
The question is this:
Should a Hulk be able to survive long enough in high sec so Concord can blow up 3 x tech 1 crap fit thrashers that are trying to gank it? Currently the hulk cant survive.
The real issue is balance. Should it instead take 3x crap fit thoraxs to pop that same Hulk in highsec before concord can blow up the thorax? Should the bar be higher? Say 3x brutix to gank a hulk in highsec before Concord can blow up the hulks?
What is fair and balanced? Dunno, but only 3x thrashers to gank a hulk in high sec before the thrashers can be popped by concord just seems silly to me.
When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
455
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 22:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
Olleybear wrote: The question is this:
The question is not if a 3m destroyer can and will gank a no tank hulk vs 5 destroyers for a tanked hulk. The Question is, do the aggressed have enough tools to counter a random foe who has concord protection tell they choose to strike first. Staying aware of who is in system D-scan possible combat probes if at a grav site Tank, to at least discourage the solo gank.
Could it be better for all? Yes. Simply having local filtering by corp or sec status would be a leap. Finally getting the new suspect flags in game, also a plus. |
Minmatar Freedom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 22:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:You used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Try again. This time, try to cover all of the following: If you like.
Quote:1. What about this do you perceive to be a problem for the game? The game is beginning down the road away from "sandbox" at the behest of the strongest group of players currently in the game. So now we need to decide if that's what we want to do or if we're committed to the idea of a true sandbox.
As a side note, the idea of "sandbox" is self-defeating in this instance. Eventually one group holds sway and begins filling in the corners of the sandbox they dislike and shrinks the sandbox to a size and shape they find favorable. Freedom limits itself in time, the idea of a true "sandbox" is impossible, for those who protest that this should be allowed to happen because of the sandbox nature of the game; there's only so much sand.
Quote:2. Why do you think it is a problem for the game? Because EVE is not built for one particular playstyle or activity. There are a myriad of things to do and explore depending on the preferences of the player. This kind of hegemony endangers that ethos because it begins solidifying a game that is intended to be fluid.
Quote:3. What would you see done about it? Truthfully, I couldn't tell you. That is for someone far wiser than I to determine and I'm afraid my solutions are either too idealistic or unworkable. However, that should not detract from my highlighting the problem. You don't have to be Steven Spielberg to know a movie was terrible.
Quote:4. How would that benefit the game? EVE would continue to be, in my opinion, one of the best games available. Our playerbase would remain diverse and the EVE universe would continue what it's generally been; open. |
Minmatar Freedom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 22:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:What you just described is a personal problem, though - a problem for *you*. Not a problem for the game.
If enough "you's" pile up, they BECOME a problem for the game.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Let me sum up how it will go.
- CCP by default do not give a crap. They don't even do it when it matters (i.e. releasing lolUI).
I would disagree regarding the last part. CCP is, at the end of the day, dedicated to making money but they've shown far more responsiveness to their playerbase than any other game company I've seen. I have friends who play WoW and some of the stories they have about Blizzard's policy of DGAS towards players absolutely blow me away. I don't think someone reads and catalogues everytime someone has a ragequit, but I disagree that they dont care.
Quote:- Nothing will be done. The huge majority of the playerbase will not know nor care about this stuff. I partially agree on the former and disagree on the latter.
I doubt anything substantial will be done but I do think far more of the playerbase cares than most seem to think. This does effect everyone.
Quote:- ***If*** anything will happen that hurts CCP's wallets for enough time, then they will forget about the high sandbox proclaims and just nerf it with a mammoth bat. I really couldn't address that, not being privy to or a member of CCP. |
Haulie Berry
138
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Minmatar Freedom wrote:
As a side note, the idea of "sandbox" is self-defeating in this instance. Eventually one group holds sway and begins filling in the corners of the sandbox they dislike and shrinks the sandbox to a size and shape they find favorable. Freedom limits itself in time, the idea of a true "sandbox" is impossible, for those who protest that this should be allowed to happen because of the sandbox nature of the game; there's only so much sand.
The main problem here seems to be that you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means. Well, that, and you have a predilection toward nonsensical rhetoric (e.g., "freedom limits itself in time" - I'm sure that sounded very pithy in your head but it''s utterly meaningless tripe).
Another player stopping you from doing something does not make the game less of a "sandbox". On the contrary, that's the whole point of it BEING a sandbox. The ONLY way to adversely affect what makes it a "sandbox" is very policy or mechanics changes that limit what players can do. Players can't do a damn thing to harm the sandbox from inside of it. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
Instead of "wasting" time trying to have fun doing something you miners obviously have no understanding about, why don't you just do something else?
Watch a good film, read a book, have a nice pint with some friends, play fps games for 30min or play naughty games with a nice partner?
|
|
Minmatar Freedom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:35:00 -
[41] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:The main problem here seems to be that you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means. Well, that, and you have a predilection toward nonsensical rhetoric (e.g., "freedom limits itself in time" - I'm sure that sounded very pithy in your head but it''s utterly meaningless tripe). I don't know if I can make myself more clear, perhaps using smaller words?
Quote:Another player stopping you from doing something does not make the game less of a "sandbox". On the contrary, that's the whole point of it BEING a sandbox. The ONLY way to adversely affect what makes it a "sandbox" is very policy or mechanics changes that limit what players can do. Players can't do a damn thing to harm the sandbox from inside of it. You have it almost entirely, you're just missing one important piece. The sandbox CAN limit itself without intervention from those who make the policies or mechanics. One group of people inside the sandbox becomes powerful enough that it starts reshaping the sandbox to a form they see most fitting, thereby limiting the "freedom" of other people.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
612
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:As mining is for the most part where noobs begin their Eve life, I hope that they do not get impacted too extremely. The last thing anyone wants is new players quitting after only been playing for a month or so. Unless you really hate Eve and want it to fail that is.
Disagree. Many of us stayed even tho we were shot at (and in some cases killed) in highsec, by people who dodged CONCORD. It was frustrating at times, but we HTFU and learned to defend ourselves.
The difference now vs then is, that alot of people feel they have some kind of 'right' to be 'safe', or that it somehow is 'bad' for EVE that people are scared of ship destruction. Imho, it's worse for EVE's future that we have that kind of mentality, than losing potential new customers. We don't "need" new players (altho it might be nice to have more), but we need to teach new players how this game has consequences. One of them, is that others gameplay might be forced upon you, like it or not.
I never really got why there's alot of people playing this game, even tho they hate some of the fundemental parts of the games concept. If I don't want permadeath in Diablo, I don't play hardcore. If I don't want to PvP in MMO's, I stick to PvE-servers, and avoid blantant PvP games. EVE has nonstop PvP flag and you risk losing your gear on death, you don't like it? wrong server (game). shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
148
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
People don't seem to remember that CCP created this issue when they did the last Moon "Nerf" All they did was shift the isk to another group.... It seems clear that some within CCP think the Bees are good for the game, that their "pollenation by force routine" adds to the game, and will bring them more subs.... Only time will tell.
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
988
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
Misanth wrote: We don't "need" new players (altho it might be nice to have more), but we need to teach new players how this game has consequences. One of them, is that others gameplay might be forced upon you, like it or not.
The game has consequences and is a sandbox only as long as the long term sandbox stays neutral.
As of now it's possible for 1 entity to take enough valuable "battle objectives" (moons) to basically ransom the whole game to do their whims and for as long as they want. They create their own consequences (like i.e.: you must join 0.0 or else...), they indeed create game content but that game content exclusively suits them, the resulting sandbox suits them with no alternative.
Short of missing to pay rent nobody will displace them anytime soon.
There will be no respite, no "well I don't like their imposed sandbox but I know somebody else will replace them in 3 months and then I'll have a sandbox I like more".
Basically it's not playing "a" sandbox but "their" sandbox for a very, very long time.
Why pay for somebody else's sandbox, including disliked rules imposed on you?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
983
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:52:00 -
[45] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank.
Please go fly a Hulk, fit the best tank you can and then let me know where you are mining. I will bring a T1 fit Tornado and **** all over you. All the while having my alt on standby to turn an even larger profit by scooping your loot. Fit a tank...
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
If you place artificial limits on gameplay, it can no longer be said to be emergent.
C. |
Haulie Berry
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:59:00 -
[47] - Quote
Minmatar Freedom wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:The main problem here seems to be that you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means. Well, that, and you have a predilection toward nonsensical rhetoric (e.g., "freedom limits itself in time" - I'm sure that sounded very pithy in your head but it''s utterly meaningless tripe). I don't know if I can make myself more clear, perhaps using smaller words?
The problem wasn't a matter of clarity, the problem was a lack of any meaningful substance. Classic appeal to emotion, wholly bereft of any factual basis in reality.
Quote: You have it almost entirely, you're just missing one important piece. The sandbox CAN limit itself without intervention from those who make the policies or mechanics. One group of people inside the sandbox becomes powerful enough that it starts reshaping the sandbox to a form they see most fitting, thereby limiting the "freedom" of other people.
...yeah, as I was saying, you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means in this context. You might not even be capable of it.
Players limiting other players does not adversely affect "the sandbox" at all. The ability to do that is, in fact, a fundamental necessity for the sandbox to exist. Players limit the freedom of other players CONSTANTLY in EvE. There is no qualitative difference between Hulkageddon Forever and, say, a particularly rich marketeer using their wealth to corner a market, or one guy in a rifter mission busting a carebear. The only difference is quantitative - a matter of scale.
The fact that it is technically possible to accumulate enough power to have a major impact on the game world is hugely important to the nature of a sandbox game. It's also a major marketing point of Eve - pretty much every trailer they've produced, ever, has somehow incorporated this theme. So, what, do you think they should slap an asterisk on that? What should it say?
"* Unless you're just too goddamn successful at intergalactic domination, and then we'll have to go and change the rules on you and, indeed, the very nature of the game." |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
614
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:00:00 -
[48] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Misanth wrote: We don't "need" new players (altho it might be nice to have more), but we need to teach new players how this game has consequences. One of them, is that others gameplay might be forced upon you, like it or not.
The game has consequences and is a sandbox only as long as the long term sandbox stays neutral. As of now it's possible for 1 entity to take enough valuable "battle objectives" (moons) to basically ransom the whole game to do their whims and for as long as they want. They create their own consequences (like i.e.: you must join 0.0 or else...), they indeed create game content but that game content exclusively suits them, the resulting sandbox suits them with no alternative. Short of missing to pay rent nobody will displace them anytime soon. There will be no respite, no "well I don't like their imposed sandbox but I know somebody else will replace them in 3 months and then I'll have a sandbox I like more". Basically it's not playing "a" sandbox but "their" sandbox for a very, very long time. Why pay for somebody else's sandbox, including disliked rules imposed on you? Had EvE been newer, fresher and with enough willing guys to form an opposing force, it could be possible to try change The New Order. But most players with leadership quit, it's just individual or small groups, they won't reach a critical mass to try contest the new EvE owners. Even if they did, they don't have the infinite ISK coming from moons and they will be crushed. The Butterfly effect is a fallacity: it would only work in an open universe. EvE is too small, there are not infinite opportunities here.
Noone is forced to use the modules that uses the moon minerals, 'nuff said. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Llywelyn Emrys
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Just tank your stupid Hulks already...
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
988
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
Misanth wrote: Noone is forced to use the modules that uses the moon minerals, 'nuff said.
A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win.
Plus, doing a 500 vs 500 fight where one side has T1 fit ships and the other T2 + command ships + proper logistics.... imbalance could happen.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Darth Tickles
Dark Sun Consortium
504
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:06:00 -
[51] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win.
lol
tell us more about how nullsec wars are won
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
371
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
OP,
I don't think an indefinite Hulkageddon is a bad thing. It's actually been around for nearly forever even before the first Hulkageddon was ever hosted. So far, Eve Online has not crashed and burned since then as the doomsayers profess.
Also, even the most powerful alliance is never immune to the enemy within. If you recall what happened to Band of Brothers, a once-powerful alliance that controlled more than half of New Eden in their heyday, they collapsed because of a single spy who conspired with Goonswarm (a then-fledgling alliance). Who is to say that the same thing won't happen with them? Spying is part of the game after all. It may take years to see results, but the goal is usually worth the effort. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:10:00 -
[53] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank.
I love these responses. Sadly some will actually fall for this and tank there mining ship only to find out it did absolutely nothing, Unless the ganker is a complete fail.
IF people would just be aware and watch local then the number of ganks would go down. However people still mine in systems where you have to scroll local so the gankers will continue to feast. I can't really say I feel sorry for the miners that do get ganked when they don't pay attention. However at the same time ganking a miner because someone else tells you too, now that is just as funny and pathetic as well. Little bees is very so true, off to die at the whim of another person, and really only for their amusement at that. I have to give Goonies credit they do know how to meta game, and get the puppies to do there job for them.
But carry on, I admit the whole thing amuses me too as I watch to see how it ends. CCP set to change build Requirements for Exhumers |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
614
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:11:00 -
[54] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Misanth wrote: Noone is forced to use the modules that uses the moon minerals, 'nuff said.
A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win. Plus, doing a 500 vs 500 fight where one side has T1 fit ships and the other T2 + command ships + proper logistics.... imbalance could happen.
Then stop doing 500 vs 500 fights, stop trying to own space, stop trying to make ship replacement schemes, etc?
It's quite simple really; you want to play the big boys field, you play by their rulebook (or find your own loopholes). If you can't handle that, then find your own niche or slice of the cake. Currently my 20 man corp lives in space that is 'contested', but highly active with Razor and Goons. Recently for example my CEO (alone) engaged 12 guys shooting an offline Raiden-POS, and they ran. Two of us in corp took on bit over ten Razor, fighting over an Estamel spawn in a belt too. Eventually we had to retreat, I think at the end they were 15 or 16, with logistics, combat probes, Curse, Rapier etc. We were two.
My point; stupid people want **** for free. If I can't fly t2, I will fly t1 like the early days. Like, when t2 production was monopolized (remember 150mil Cap Recharger II's? Remember 150mil Cov Ops Cloaking Device? Remember Absolutions? etc). And if I want to try to take space or moons from 9k+ people, then quite obviously they won't just roll over and let you have it.
There is more ways to play this game than one. But yah, it seems most don't understand that simple thing. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Misanth wrote: Noone is forced to use the modules that uses the moon minerals, 'nuff said.
A new rising alliance would not care about using (or not) such modules. They would not be able to compete in the economy war that after months or years of attrition could let them win. Plus, doing a 500 vs 500 fight where one side has T1 fit ships and the other T2 + command ships + proper logistics.... imbalance could happen.
It's worth noting that the previous "unassailable" Alliance (Band of Brothers) was destroyed not by force of arms but internal strife and disent.
C. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
371
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Or the miners could adapt and start fitting a tank. I love these responses. Sadly some will actually fall for this and tank there mining ship only to find out it did absolutely nothing, Unless the ganker is a complete fail.IF people would just be aware and watch local then the number of ganks would go down. However people still mine in systems where you have to scroll local so the gankers will continue to feast. I can't really say I feel sorry for the miners that do get ganked when they don't pay attention. However at the same time ganking a miner because someone else tells you too, now that is just as funny and pathetic as well. Little bees is very so true, off to die at the whim of another person, and really only for their amusement at that. I have to give Goonies credit they do know how to meta game, and get the puppies to do there job for them. But carry on, I admit the whole thing amuses me too as I watch to see how it ends.
In a way, tanking a Hulk does help... in making sure only the best and determined gankers gain the fruits of their labors. Eve Online is all about natural selection anyways. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
810
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
Translation: Sociopaths don't understand their disorder, however, they can be very convincing. I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Minmatar Freedom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:The problem wasn't a matter of clarity, the problem was a lack of any meaningful substance. Classic appeal to emotion, wholly bereft of any factual basis in reality. You can dislike my choice of words all you wish, it doesn't change their degree of accuracy.
Quote:...yeah, as I was saying, you fundamentally don't understand what "sandbox" means in this context. You might not even be capable of it.
Players limiting other players does not adversely affect "the sandbox" at all. The ability to do that is, in fact, a fundamental necessity for the sandbox to exist. Players limit the freedom of other players CONSTANTLY in EvE. There is no qualitative difference between Hulkageddon Forever and, say, a particularly rich marketeer using their wealth to corner a market, or one guy in a rifter mission busting a carebear. The only difference is quantitative - a matter of scale. That is precisely my point. We are approaching a scale that will be truly limiting and that wont sort itself out in time. The difference between cornering a market and setting up a situation where an entire sector of the game feels forced into a playstyle they may not have chosen is that market manipulations and other similar activities will, in the end, balance out and things will settle down. Adopting a "play our way or we'll force you out" rule then enforcing it with lethal force is not an open world and it pushes people away from EVE because it is no longer a sandbox game. It's a sandbox for one group of people and the rest of the players have to live by their rules or they don't play.
Quote:The fact that it is technically possible to accumulate enough power to have a major impact on the game world is hugely important to the nature of a sandbox game. It's also a major marketing point of Eve - pretty much every trailer they've produced, ever, has somehow incorporated this theme. Which is a problem because we're approaching the point where that's no longer possible to any significant degree.
Quote:So, what, do you think they should slap an asterisk on that? What should it say? "Only if the Goons say you can"? |
Haulie Berry
143
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Minmatar Freedom wrote: You can dislike my choice of words all you wish, it doesn't change their degree of accuracy.
They weren't accurate. That's the problem. It was fluffly, bullshit rhetoric.
Quote: That is precisely my point. We are approaching a scale that will be truly limiting and that wont sort itself out in time.
[Citation needed]. Seriously, there's no indication of that at all. You're just making things up at this point.
Quote:The difference between cornering a market and setting up a situation where an entire sector of the game feels forced into a playstyle they may not have chosen is that market manipulations and other similar activities will, in the end, balance out and things will settle down. Adopting a "play our way or we'll force you out" rule then enforcing it with lethal force is not an open world and it pushes people away from EVE because it is no longer a sandbox game. It's a sandbox for one group of people and the rest of the players have to live by their rules or they don't play.
What would not be an open world is if nobody COULD do that. If you don't like it? Fight back. You have that choice. What you seem to want is the ability to be able to do whatever you want AND be free from any possibility of interference by other players. Too ******* bad, that, because it's not going to happen. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
944
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:44:00 -
[60] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Minmatar Freedom wrote:You can dislike my choice of words all you wish, it doesn't change their degree of accuracy. They weren't accurate. That's the problem. It was fluffly, bullshit rhetoric. Quote:That is precisely my point. We are approaching a scale that will be truly limiting and that wont sort itself out in time. [Citation needed]. Seriously, there's no indication of that at all. You're just making things up at this point. That's what the forums are like nowadays. In some way, the metalore of EVE could be written by the forums, and we'd all wonder how EVE died repeatedly under the goons, gankers, The Mittani, nullsec, PvPers, etc etc over and over.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |