Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 16:24:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Cearain on 26/03/2010 16:26:56 Make the amount of loot that drops related to the number and type of ships attacking. So if its a solo fight of equal ship class, all (or close to all) of the loot will drop. If you have a frigate getting ganked by a whole fleet not much (if anything) will be left.
I suggest that this makes sense that less equipment would be damaged if there were fewer and less powerful attackers. In fact it always seemed odd that you could have just as much loot drop if you were killed by 60 others as you would if you were killed by 1.
BTW I don't think it will "fix" blobbing but it will be *something* to mitigate against it.
I discussed the pros and cons in the features and ideas thread before posting. You can read that here. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1290695
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 16:30:00 -
[2]
definitely the way to go after you got all that "positive" feedback in F&ID.
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 16:34:00 -
[3]
The blob does not care about your loot, it simply wants you dead.
|
Exlegion
Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 16:35:00 -
[4]
Supported. Will definitely need some refining, but it's worth bringing up to the CSM/CCP.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:17:00 -
[5]
Someone's been reading Scrapheap I see...
It's a nice idea and may well incentivise :small gangs: and :good fights: but it won't stop the blob (oh how I hate that term). When large fleets go out do you think they rank and file care about or expect to see any of the loots anyway?
Saying that, reducing loot drops to near zero for 'ganks' as you call them would be a bad thing IMHO, many Alliances do fund replacement/reimbursement from the spoils of larger battles and under your system there would be little left from a 'legit' fleet engagement where both sides are equally matched.
I'd be more inclined for agreeing with a near 100% drop in a 1vs1 with it scaling up to current rates and capping with say a 5vs1 situation.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:30:00 -
[6]
So let me get this straight... you think loot is going to dissuade people from blobbing?
Do you even have a inkling of an understanding fleet tactics? Do you even know why they blob?
Sorry to say... you have no business coming up with ideas for something you quite clearly have no bloody idea what your talking about.
Loot is the last thing any Fleet will consider... loot is just a consolation prize... the real prize is kicking your ass to kingdom come... with all due respect. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:34:00 -
[7]
I have been reading scrapheap challenge û itÆs a great resource - but I did not see this issue brought up. I'm not very thorough.
Your idea of ramping up the loot drop for smaller fights but limiting the damage to the loot at a certain point (whether current levels or whatever) is certainly something to be considered. That would mean there would really only be a pvp boost. It would likely hurt industrialists though.
How this balance should be struck would need to be considered. Perhaps if we had statistics that would show how many and what types of ships are involved in kills we could better gauge the impact of these changes. But even if we don't have that information ccp could take small steps in this direction and sort of learn as they go.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:37:00 -
[8]
Trust me, the gank fleet was just as disappointed as you were that they found you. They definitely were looking for something more substantial to kill. Possibly something that actually shot back at them.
Changing the loot drop isn't going to make a difference. They're just shooting you to get out the frustration of not finding something better to kill yet. I mean, people shoot pods, noob ships, and shuttles regardless of loot. In fact, gangs will shoot the wrecks, destroying the loot, so they can keep moving without leaving a trail.
|
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Drake Draconis So let me get this straight... you think loot is going to dissuade people from blobbing?
Do you even have a inkling of an understanding fleet tactics? Do you even know why they blob?
Sorry to say... you have no business coming up with ideas for something you quite clearly have no bloody idea what your talking about.
Loot is the last thing any Fleet will consider... loot is just a consolation prize... the real prize is kicking your ass to kingdom come... with all due respect.
Thanks for giving me due respect. :)
To answer your questions:
First question: IÆm not saying it will fix blobbing. I think I said that in the op. It *will* provide a (perhaps small) disadvantage to larger fleet fights and a small advantage to fighting in smaller gangs. Second question: Yes I think I have an inkling of an understanding of fleet tactics.
Third question: I would need to know who ôtheyö are in order to know their motivation for blobbing. So right now I will answer ônoö I donÆt think I know why ôtheyö blob.
|
Anna Lifera
Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 01:18:00 -
[10]
it won't mitigate blobbing even by a little because like they said before, loot is not gonna be even remotely close to a top priority to a blob. it's all about getting a perfect killboard score in a game for bragging rights and the more numbers u have compared to your enemy, the less skill/input required to survive and the less likely u and your ceo will have to cope with even one loss. simple as that.
|
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 01:25:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jack bubu The blob does not care about your loot, it simply wants you dead.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 01:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Jack bubu The blob does not care about your loot, it simply wants you dead.
I just don't see this as a good argument to continue to reward blobbing with just as much loot as non-blob pvp.
I tend to think economic implications effect behavior. But even if you want to deny this as regards to blobbers there would still be the added benefit of *doing* small gang pvp. This plan has a carrot and a stick. Arguments about blobber mentality only apply to the stick part of it, not the carrot. Are you saying its impossible that those who like to do smaller scale pvp might not do more of it if they could recover more loot that way? If you just want to argue that economic incentives don't work in eve, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you think blobbing is what makes eve great then continue to be in favor of the current mechanic. If on the other hand you think blobbing makes eve worse and tends to destroy something that is better - smaller scale pvp - then you should support proposals that promote what you like about the game.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 06:07:00 -
[13]
So you are advocating for a complete overhaul of the killmail system so that you can achieve an admitedly negligible effect?
Or are you advocating for decreasing the ISK gained from popping haulers/shuttles/etc via camps and suicide ganks?
Considering the serious lack of substance to the idea here, or in your original post:http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1290695 I vote no.
You get a 9/10 for your use in rhetorical techniques. Subtle but not entirely lacking force. THis post was loads better than your post about EvE's need for aggro mechanics in missions (rats need to switch aggro to pirates who invade missions.. and all scram the pirate too).
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 10:01:00 -
[14]
Well put it this way, you could implement it, but it wouldn't do jack ****.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 10:51:00 -
[15]
Actually, the idea is not that bad i must say, it would strongly help pirates, as they will get much more drops, (nearly twice). Yet, i know it will not discourage blobbing.
|
Skylar Gray
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 13:39:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Skylar Gray on 27/03/2010 13:42:12 lol Blobbing is not a form of "ass-kicking" in any way. You spew vomit onto the target and they have no chance to survive at all. They're pussies not pvpers.
This though: "Actually, the idea is not that bad i must say, it would strongly help pirates, as they will get much more drops, (nearly twice). Yet, i know it will not discourage blobbing."
Blobs = fail
Pirates = win, a profession that gets nerfed HARDER and HARDER every time I turn the **** around. CCP has literally spit in the FACES of pirates New-Eden -wide and gotten away with it cause the easier they make this game, the more subs they'll get.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 15:46:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Skylar Gray
Pirates = win, a profession that gets nerfed HARDER and HARDER every time I turn the **** around. CCP has literally spit in the FACES of pirates New-Eden -wide and gotten away with it cause the easier they make this game, the more subs they'll get.
Because ganking newbies in caracals and badgers all day is pro-only amirite?
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 17:45:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro So you are advocating for a complete overhaul of the killmail system so that you can achieve an admitedly negligible effect?
Or are you advocating for decreasing the ISK gained from popping haulers/shuttles/etc via camps and suicide ganks?
Considering the serious lack of substance to the idea here, or in your original post:http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1290695 I vote no.
You get a 9/10 for your use in rhetorical techniques. Subtle but not entirely lacking force. THis post was loads better than your post about EvE's need for aggro mechanics in missions (rats need to switch aggro to pirates who invade missions.. and all scram the pirate too).
ôComplete overhaulöl? I donÆt know why you would think that. The killmail system in place already gives the majority of info needed. If they tried to do something based on a comparison of fleet sizes that would take some extra doing. But my *guess* would be that this would be little more than a tweak to the loot drop mechanic. But more importantly I really donÆt think assembly hall is the place for people to speculate how technically difficult a change may or may not be. It seems to me that we need to decide if we want the change. CCP can then discuss with the CSM if there are large technical barriers. Of course if there are large technical barriers then sure this idea could be tabled. But I would point out that I noticed the occasional bug in the killmail system anyway, so regardless of this idea an overhaul may be in order. ôNegligible effectö? IÆm not claiming this will ôfixö blobbing. But I also donÆt think this change is negligible. Look at some killboards and do some of the math. If a typical pvp ship drops 20 mill in mods and the drop is about half the value of the total mods then this means we are talking about a 40 million isk swing per ship. If the average drop is 10 mill and about half mods drop itÆs a 20 mill swing. I wouldnÆt call this negligible. Ok yeah I donÆt know what the actual numbers are from any statistically significant study but just eyeballing the costs of many pvp ship mods I think most people can see this can really be significant. if you disagree use your own numbers but I donÆt think this is negligible.
Certainly it is in line with the changes that the csm typically suggests. It may even be on the more significant side of the scale. This is not a ônegligibleö change. Haulers and shuttles? CCP can value haulers and shuttles however they want. Or they can leave them out of this new mechanism entirely! The change is to promote smaller group pvp not to effect these other things. LetÆs stay focused on that. IÆm glad you mention that you argued with me in other posts on completely different issues. I noticed a few other naysayers in this thread and the one in features and ideas had disagreements with me in the past on entirely different issues. IÆm not necessarily saying they all just need some butt paste (after all it may just be a coincidence that we 1. have enough of an interest in the same exact topics despite ther the fact they have nothing to do with each other, and yet 2. we always disagree on the conclusions.) but I canÆt rule that out either. So the fact that a few folks who have argued with me before in the forums on different issues show up in these threads and try to attack my post without really addressing the content of the idea, is not really going to make me think the idea isnÆt a good one. At least you address the idea I propose, which I appreciate. Othersà wellà. read McleverÆs ôcontributionö to this thread and I think you see my point.
|
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 17:57:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Actually, the idea is not that bad i must say, it would strongly help pirates, as they will get much more drops, (nearly twice). Yet, i know it will not discourage blobbing.
I really wish you wouldn't have pointed that out. Now that ccp realizes the proposal may help pirates, it's doomed. BTW I don't think this will just help "pirates" in the strict sense - those who attack pve'ers. Instead I see this as helping "pirates" in the broader sense - just about everyone in low sec who likes to pvp there - with the possible exclusion of fw. If you pvp in low sec enough your sec status will drop regardless of whether you attack mission runners or other pvp ships. (again fw pilots aside) The thing is it seems most of the pirate fights (again using "pirate" in this more general sense) I see in low sec often have smaller scale engagements. Of course there are plenty of exceptions.
But I tend to think more people who are in low sec pirate corps would benefit from this change. Indeed I think low sec pvp would benefit in general. But by saying this I know I am spelling the death knell for this idea. Still, doesn't mean you can't support it.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 18:08:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 27/03/2010 18:08:53 I do like the idea don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't really change people's behaviour one jot outside of a few circumstances.
'Blobbing' in my mind is this: There is a target(s) in your system/space and you assemble a gang to counter it, you don't think you have enough so you wait until you get enough to utterly crush it. Maybe people will be skewed towards taking a bit more risk in these conditions...
5 man gang comes into your space and you get 20 x's straight off the bat: Not blobbing.
10 man roaming gang happens across a ratting Raven: Not blobbing.
Badger strays into a large gatecamp: Not blobbing.
400 man fleet is raised to take a strategic objective despite the fact that the defenders can only bring 200: Not blobbing.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 19:17:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 27/03/2010 19:18:19 Ok first off let me say that I would love for there to be less blobbing. I dont think anyone is against that. Let me also say that on a gut reaction level, before reasoned consideration, this plan sounds good. However, the "devil is in the details"... which you have consitantly refused to elaborate upon or consider meaningfully. This is why I dont support the idea (atm). Now to clarify some things that were evidently lost in translation:
1)The overhaul issue- I assume "CCP should discuss with CSM if there are large technical barriers" to indicate that you thought I was talking about specifically hardware (server load)/programing problems. I was not. I am arguing that accomplishing your idea would require a major re-work in conception of what a killmail (thus loot modifier) is. Perhaps an example would be easier to follow here. Lets assume that there is NO technical problem in implamenting your idea:
Situation A)- Your 5man HAC gang jumps into a 20man Mix gang... loot tables are modified via "involved parties" list so each kill shows 5 HAC vs. whatevership.
To fix the problem you then add "fleet chan" numbers and ship types into the equation so that the 5man gang is not penalized. Ok, still assuming no technical issues lets see the effect on another common engagement under these new rules:
Situation B)- you are in said 5man HAC gang and decide to engage a solo HAC on your own. It is :goodfight: because nobody jumped in, but your loot table is modified (again)by virtue of your being IN a gang even though the gang was not involved.
Or how about the fact that there are nuetrals who involve themselves in fights?Which side do they "effect"? Especially when thier actions are not logged on the killmail at all? As I said, the devil is in the details, and details matter to a community of rational beings (whom are effected by any change).
2)On the word "Negligable"- I think you misconstrued what I was talking about, though this is perhaps my own fault for not clarifying. I agree that the effects on loot can be considerable. What I meant is that your change will have a negligable effect on the problem. You yourself admit that it will not "fix" the problem. And you have been given arguments why it wont act as a strong mitigating force. You are asking for changes,therefore, that dont accomplish anything/much in relation to the problem.... what you DO accomplish (and i consider this to be perhaps a gooood thing...perhaps) is make pvp a viable alternative to pve for ISK generation...for the solo and small gang players. As it stands now pvp is either a necessity to protect ISK faucets/assets, or "for fun" and therefore the ISK made is accidental and not integral to the game play (people run around solo and in small gangs without it being as "lucrative" so this obviously isnt a driving factor)
P.S.- alluding to the possibility that people are arguing aginst your ideas purely out of spite does not, in any way, advance your position in a rational manner. But again I applaud your use of rhetorical devices as a means to gain support. I must, for the sake of reasoned discourse, make sure to point them out however. Its not personal.
|
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 19:41:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Cearain on 27/03/2010 19:43:37 Larkonis I see what you are saying here. Your defining blobbing as intentionally shipping up way above what you believe your opponent has. To the extent blobbing has a negative connotation I would agree with what you say. I guess though I might say other of those situations involved blobbing but I would agree there is nothing wrong with doing that.
If you have to defend say a pos in a worm hole that your corp spent months setting up then yeah bring all the firepower you can. Blob them. Nothing wrong with that. But putting aside what blobbing is and is not, and whether its right or wrong let me explain how I think this proposal will have some effect on the game.
IÆm talking with corpmates. We can either join a huge fleet with other corps or just go roaming ourselves. If we go in the big feet we will likely be larger than the vast majority of fleets in the area. Accordingly, economically speaking we will be taking very little risk by involving our ships in this endeavor. Not ôno riskö but compared to flying in a small gang where we know there will be other larger fleets in the area its considerably less.
If we decide to go out in a gang of 2-8 and roam around (I realize this may seem a very small group to many people but there are places where this is done.) we run a much higher chance of losing our ships. So from an economic perspective this is not a great way to roll.
My proposal would give an upside to this sort of gang forming versus piling into the larger fleet. Yeah people would still say we are more likely to lose our ships doing this and they would likely be right. But at least you could say well if we do say catch a Battleship with our Bc and 3 cruisers and 2 frigs we will get a decent amount of loot. Instead of that BS dropping 10 mill in loot to be divided by 40 it might drop 50 mill divided by 6. (Assuming under the current mechanic it would drop 30 million) So for that gang of 6 thatÆs an extra 8 mill or so for that kill.
Ok its going to be a long haul before you can get slave implants doing this, but it is some incentive to join a smaller group instead of a huge fleet. I donÆt think itÆs negligible. And it rewards the extra risk you take.
So you have a bit added incentive to go small group. This should influence you to do it more often. HereÆs the thing, if it influences you, it will influence others. And if it influences others to do it, then you are going to have more smaller gangs to fight in and against.
Also consider this: you might have a solo fight with an equal class ship ( lets say cruiser class) that you are doing ok against. Instead of calling in all your gang to obliterate him you may want to gamble a bit to make some extra loot. Ok most wonÆt do that unless they are pretty sure they can win. And if they start to go down they will call in the Calvary. But still there is some risk and some thought before you immediately decide to call in the 2 blackbirds and 4 megathrons to finish off that rupture.
How many people would make those sorts of calls? I donÆt know, but I know I would. Kill the guy solo and have more loot for the gang to split. Immediately warp in the gang and kiss that odd faction mod that might have dropped goodbye.
Would one really be able to make isk at pvp if they were really good? Well IÆm not saying that either but I would think many good small gang pvpers can see some advantage here. ItÆs hard to argue against the economics and deny the possibility that this would boost small scale pvp . How exactly it would play out I cant necessarily say.
But again just saying I donÆt think it will work is not really a good reason to reject it. Not unless you are *sure* it wonÆt boost small scale pvp. And I think people who say that are fighting basic economic principles. So in the end unless there is a big downside to offset this benefit (or at least potential benefit) the rational thing to do is go with it.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 20:01:00 -
[23]
Yes give pirates even more reason to dishonour ransom by higher loot drops.
One day pirates will realise they dont have anyone but themselves to blame for their lack of targets.
Regarding the topic, so if 5 pirates kill me when flying solo they get most of the loot. Yet when we would attack a 200 men fleet with 100 people we wouldnt get loot since we are blobbing? That doesnt make sense to me.
|
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 20:04:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 27/03/2010 19:18:19 Ok first off let me say that I would love for there to be less blobbing. I dont think anyone is against that. Let me also say that on a gut reaction level, before reasoned consideration, this plan sounds good. However, the "devil is in the details"... which you have consitantly refused to elaborate upon or consider meaningfully. This is why I dont support the idea (atm). Now to clarify some things that were evidently lost in translation:
1)The overhaul issue- I assume "CCP should discuss with CSM if there are large technical barriers" to indicate that you thought I was talking about specifically hardware (server load)/programing problems. I was not. I am arguing that accomplishing your idea would require a major re-work in conception of what a killmail (thus loot modifier) is. Perhaps an example would be easier to follow here. Lets assume that there is NO technical problem in implamenting your idea:
Situation A)- Your 5man HAC gang jumps into a 20man Mix gang... loot tables are modified via "involved parties" list so each kill shows 5 HAC vs. whatevership.
To fix the problem you then add "fleet chan" numbers and ship types into the equation so that the 5man gang is not penalized. Ok, still assuming no technical issues lets see the effect on another common engagement under these new rules:
Situation B)- you are in said 5man HAC gang and decide to engage a solo HAC on your own. It is :goodfight: because nobody jumped in, but your loot table is modified (again)by virtue of your being IN a gang even though the gang was not involved.
Or how about the fact that there are nuetrals who involve themselves in fights?Which side do they "effect"? Especially when thier actions are not logged on the killmail at all? As I said, the devil is in the details, and details matter to a community of rational beings (whom are effected by any change).
Ok your analysis assumes that ccp would take into account the whole fleet that you were in. When I was posting in response to Larkonis I was not doing that. (although I do think that possibility is something the csm/ccp should consider)
But let me just explain the plain vanilla version. So in situation A assuming all 5 hacs show on the kill mail the loot would be adjusted accordingly. If that means the killmail is of a frigate then there would be very little loot dropping. If it was a battleships somewhat more. If the hac gang started winning the engagement they may want to stop all firing on one primary and attacking individual ships to get more loot. That would be up to them.
Situation B û if you are the only one on the kill mail then its solo and you only compare classes of ships.
Neutrals û such as remote repair helping one side? That might be bit more difficult. Since I think neutral remote repair needs to be reworked as it is I would be fine with saying if you get killed despite neutral remote repair all your loot will automatically drop.
But IÆm sure the csm can come up with other suggestions. For example, depending on the class of the ship remote repairing the ship getting remote repaired would have ôxö amount added to it. While I agree this stuff will need to be done I donÆt think this is anything insurmountable.
|
Cearain
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 20:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Furb Killer Yes give pirates even more reason to dishonour ransom by higher loot drops.
One day pirates will realise they dont have anyone but themselves to blame for their lack of targets.
Regarding the topic, so if 5 pirates kill me when flying solo they get most of the loot. Yet when we would attack a 200 men fleet with 100 people we wouldnt get loot since we are blobbing? That doesnt make sense to me.
You are right that very little loot would drop in your 100 versus 200 battle assuming people follow primaries. (I donÆt think this will change the practice of having everyone shoot at a primary although if it did I think that might be a good thing.) I accept that this is a downside of the proposal. But my proposal would be a reason not to get into a 100 man fleet to begin with. If you have good reason to get into a hundred man fleet such as to defend some important resource you, of course, can but you just wonÆt get allot of loot. If you donÆt have any really good reason to get into a 100 man fleet other than to blob a gate wellà now you have an additional incentive to try out smaller scale pvp.
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 20:55:00 -
[26]
Like any 100-man fleet is assembled under the premise of loot. This will not change a thing, if people want to achieve an objective they'll do it whatever the cost.
Your idea is fatally flawed. It's been shot down in a previous subforum so you tried again, and you're receiving even less support. ___
|
Skylar Gray
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 21:17:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Skylar Gray
Pirates = win, a profession that gets nerfed HARDER and HARDER every time I turn the **** around. CCP has literally spit in the FACES of pirates New-Eden -wide and gotten away with it cause the easier they make this game, the more subs they'll get.
Because ganking newbies in caracals and badgers all day is pro-only amirite?
I dont think a badger has ever come to where we live, friendo. And the noobs we kill always come back for more... shall we ignore them for you? Grow a brain boss.
|
Hiedi Jarret
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 21:17:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro ...your change will have a negligable effect on the problem. You yourself admit that it will not "fix" the problem. And you have been given arguments why it wont act as a strong mitigating force. You are asking for changes,therefore, that dont accomplish anything/much in relation to the problem....
This.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 21:36:00 -
[29]
It surely won't fix blobs, but why reject the proposal merely on these considerations?
The idea is just to give some carrot to those of us who don't blob. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Skylar Gray
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 21:44:00 -
[30]
I honestly think it will encourage even smaller gang pvp. It wont stop the blobs by any means cause russians cant even read this lol, but at least it will give small gangs more reason to go out and fight, knowing majority of mods/loot will be awaiting any kills they make. I know I would make an effort to roam more looking for targets :D
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |