| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lifewire
   |
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:10:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 13:11:23
Mega-alliances and blobbing rule at the moment. Actually there is a way to "win" EVE by napping tons of players and claim 0.0 completly.
A (fantasy) scenario:
BOB naps CA, NSA and FE and builts a mega-alliance. This group would be large enough to block all entrys into 0.0, siege the rest of the players and destroy EVE by not delivering needed minerals to empire. In the end Xetic, FA, Norad and all the other smaller alliances would have to nap each otther too ==> megablobwar!!! This virtual scenario shows that mega-alliances and blobbing are not "good" for the game. If i would be an alliance leader and i would command 1000 players, i would have 10 players with bubbles at each chokepoint to 0.0 23/7 and 900 players ready in empire to reeinforce these camping teams if another alliance trys to break the 10-player blockades. Sieging empire is possible if an alliance has 1000 players that do good teamplay. In fact alliances allready do this and fight each other too. If the 0.0 alliances would all nap, this would end carebearing in empire if no, not a single piece of Zydrine and Megacyte is delivered to empire. It cannot be expected that all alliances nap, but i could happen that a mega-alliance has a good strategic leader that realizes an empire siege and really gets EVE into trouble. Actually it¦s the only way for an alliance to "win" the game: destroy the economy of all others while keeping the own economy running. If an alliance would try this, it would cause megamega-blobbing with blobwars of 500 vs 500 or more.
That¦s why i open the topic "brainstorm vs blobbing". I like the original idea of EVE much to have corpsized groups of players fighting for ressources. The blobbing and mass-napping leading to alliances with 4000 and maybe soon more players are not good for EVE. If napping and blobbing goes extreme we could get into a state where we have a large playergroup that really controls 0.0 and the EVE economy and finally destroys it.
Ideas vs blobbing and mass-napping:
- high ore should spawn in much more systems, but less in each single system. The high ore distribution must be chnaged in a way that force large blobs to spread out to find the ore. Actually it doesnt make sence to hold big territory if the high ore only spawns in 2-3 systems per region.
- fog of war! The map is one of the main reasons for blobwars and massblobbing. The map shows any enemy movement way before a possible attack happens. This cause antiblobbbing and antiblobbing causes antiantiblobbing with causes antiantiantiblobbing...and so on.
- NPCs don¦t respawn so fast! Once the NPC-rats are shot down, they should need 1-2 days to recover in this system and the NPC-hunting blobbing alliance should be forced to spread out to hunt rats.
- refinable shipwrecks. Proposed in another topic these shipwrecks would have a high value (BS-wreck 50 mil ISK) and would cause to act quick and not "wait for the blob". If players want to make the ISK they will have to do it with the ships they have in the system and calling 20-30 alliancemates would take to long to get the wreck before the enemy does.
- sec hits in 0.0. It¦s not good pvp to gank someone 20 vs 1 (i know this too  ). One way to reduce these "events" would be to give sec, hits in 0.0. If 20 players attack 1 innocent player in 0.0 they would get 20 sec. hits...all of them. A good reason not to blob and attack on more fair ods.
- reduce max. gangsize to 10 or 20 + a skill that allows to have max. 10 more. Fleet battles with more than 60 ships are not really funny. Lag and bugs cause a lot of trouble.
Any other ideas to reduce imperialistic mass-napping and mass-blobbing and come back to an EVE-game with corpsized wars and battles that make much more fun than this blob$hit?
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:10:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 13:11:23
Mega-alliances and blobbing rule at the moment. Actually there is a way to "win" EVE by napping tons of players and claim 0.0 completly.
A (fantasy) scenario:
BOB naps CA, NSA and FE and builts a mega-alliance. This group would be large enough to block all entrys into 0.0, siege the rest of the players and destroy EVE by not delivering needed minerals to empire. In the end Xetic, FA, Norad and all the other smaller alliances would have to nap each otther too ==> megablobwar!!! This virtual scenario shows that mega-alliances and blobbing are not "good" for the game. If i would be an alliance leader and i would command 1000 players, i would have 10 players with bubbles at each chokepoint to 0.0 23/7 and 900 players ready in empire to reeinforce these camping teams if another alliance trys to break the 10-player blockades. Sieging empire is possible if an alliance has 1000 players that do good teamplay. In fact alliances allready do this and fight each other too. If the 0.0 alliances would all nap, this would end carebearing in empire if no, not a single piece of Zydrine and Megacyte is delivered to empire. It cannot be expected that all alliances nap, but i could happen that a mega-alliance has a good strategic leader that realizes an empire siege and really gets EVE into trouble. Actually it¦s the only way for an alliance to "win" the game: destroy the economy of all others while keeping the own economy running. If an alliance would try this, it would cause megamega-blobbing with blobwars of 500 vs 500 or more.
That¦s why i open the topic "brainstorm vs blobbing". I like the original idea of EVE much to have corpsized groups of players fighting for ressources. The blobbing and mass-napping leading to alliances with 4000 and maybe soon more players are not good for EVE. If napping and blobbing goes extreme we could get into a state where we have a large playergroup that really controls 0.0 and the EVE economy and finally destroys it.
Ideas vs blobbing and mass-napping:
- high ore should spawn in much more systems, but less in each single system. The high ore distribution must be chnaged in a way that force large blobs to spread out to find the ore. Actually it doesnt make sence to hold big territory if the high ore only spawns in 2-3 systems per region.
- fog of war! The map is one of the main reasons for blobwars and massblobbing. The map shows any enemy movement way before a possible attack happens. This cause antiblobbbing and antiblobbing causes antiantiblobbing with causes antiantiantiblobbing...and so on.
- NPCs don¦t respawn so fast! Once the NPC-rats are shot down, they should need 1-2 days to recover in this system and the NPC-hunting blobbing alliance should be forced to spread out to hunt rats.
- refinable shipwrecks. Proposed in another topic these shipwrecks would have a high value (BS-wreck 50 mil ISK) and would cause to act quick and not "wait for the blob". If players want to make the ISK they will have to do it with the ships they have in the system and calling 20-30 alliancemates would take to long to get the wreck before the enemy does.
- sec hits in 0.0. It¦s not good pvp to gank someone 20 vs 1 (i know this too ). One way to reduce these "events" would be to give sec, hits in 0.0. If 20 players attack 1 innocent player in 0.0 they would get 20 sec. hits...all of them. A good reason not to blob and attack on more fair ods.
- reduce max. gangsize to 10 or 20 + a skill that allows to have max. 10 more. Fleet battles with more than 60 ships are not really funny. Lag and bugs cause a lot of trouble.
Any other ideas to reduce imperialistic mass-napping and mass-blobbing and come back to an EVE-game with corpsized wars and battles that make much more fun than this blob$hit?
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:23:00 -
[3]
M0o is actually 1 of the small sized corps that reacted on mass-napping with...mass-napping. Did it make you game better to have 2000 players now you cannot shot and to blob arround like earlier only other alliances did??? I think no! The B0B (m0o) blobbing is only a reaction on the blobbing of alliances because m0o couldnt make it to fight blobs of 100+ FA or CA battleships. So rethink what you write and try to use 30 minutes thinking before posting.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:23:00 -
[4]
M0o is actually 1 of the small sized corps that reacted on mass-napping with...mass-napping. Did it make you game better to have 2000 players now you cannot shot and to blob arround like earlier only other alliances did??? I think no! The B0B (m0o) blobbing is only a reaction on the blobbing of alliances because m0o couldnt make it to fight blobs of 100+ FA or CA battleships. So rethink what you write and try to use 30 minutes thinking before posting.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 13:46:17
Sorry, but as i said: if i would be the alliance leader of 1000 players, empire would get sieged and that¦s no joke! It¦s really no big deal to organize this: 10 camps with medium bubbles, a sort of circle defense with a strategic pool of combat ships in the middle: empire. I would have 10 local commanders at each chockepoint that call reeinfocements if an alliance blob comes close. With 1000 active players i would have roundabout 300 or more online 23/7. Want to see a 300 vs 300 in EVE?! Single flying traffic could be handled anyway and the game would be reduced to massblobbing. Only a coordinated attack of all alliances could crush this setup and it would be no problem to set up the siege shortly after the alliance blobs went back home. It¦s a quetion of time...there will be an alliance sooner or later that says this is a valid tactic like all alliances say blobbing is a valid tactic. Large ammounts of players that work together can do big damage to a game that is originally programmed for corpsized teams.
But interesting that B(l)OB reacts like a wasp-swarm on my topic  . I really think corps like Evol or m0o where so ****ed about alliance-blobbing earlier in the game the they made it to their religion to blob like crazy now. It¦s not a solution - it makes the game stupid. I keppt an eye on your B(l)LOB-blob yesterday when you moved to Fade. I saw 5 (in numbers five) shipskills on the map you guys did/or lost. You guys where 50+ players!!! So was the other blob: 50+ players!!! Come on - 5 kills!!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!! Don¦t you guys fall asleep playing this way???? We did 30 kils with 3 ships meanwhile!!! I can¦t understand how players prefer blobbing warfare instead of cool corpsized battles that run down like oil!
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:38:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 13:46:17
Sorry, but as i said: if i would be the alliance leader of 1000 players, empire would get sieged and that¦s no joke! It¦s really no big deal to organize this: 10 camps with medium bubbles, a sort of circle defense with a strategic pool of combat ships in the middle: empire. I would have 10 local commanders at each chockepoint that call reeinfocements if an alliance blob comes close. With 1000 active players i would have roundabout 300 or more online 23/7. Want to see a 300 vs 300 in EVE?! Single flying traffic could be handled anyway and the game would be reduced to massblobbing. Only a coordinated attack of all alliances could crush this setup and it would be no problem to set up the siege shortly after the alliance blobs went back home. It¦s a quetion of time...there will be an alliance sooner or later that says this is a valid tactic like all alliances say blobbing is a valid tactic. Large ammounts of players that work together can do big damage to a game that is originally programmed for corpsized teams.
But interesting that B(l)OB reacts like a wasp-swarm on my topic . I really think corps like Evol or m0o where so ****ed about alliance-blobbing earlier in the game the they made it to their religion to blob like crazy now. It¦s not a solution - it makes the game stupid. I keppt an eye on your B(l)LOB-blob yesterday when you moved to Fade. I saw 5 (in numbers five) shipskills on the map you guys did/or lost. You guys where 50+ players!!! So was the other blob: 50+ players!!! Come on - 5 kills!!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!! Don¦t you guys fall asleep playing this way???? We did 30 kils with 3 ships meanwhile!!! I can¦t understand how players prefer blobbing warfare instead of cool corpsized battles that run down like oil!
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:52:00 -
[7]
The node crash is the point ! Extreme blobbing would cause this, yes. And don¦t think this siege plan will never happen. We had an internal discussion in TDG/Teddys to nap all remaining piratecorps and organize a large scale empire siege with an circle defense + reseves in the middle. An alliance like the CA or B(l)OB, aggressive and militaristic like we are could easily realize it. Fact is: it is allready realized - but not coordinated by someone - each alliance trys to siege "their" chokepoints. A coordinated siege would be the only way to destroy other alliances. Possible that CCP would interupt this, though.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 13:52:00 -
[8]
The node crash is the point ! Extreme blobbing would cause this, yes. And don¦t think this siege plan will never happen. We had an internal discussion in TDG/Teddys to nap all remaining piratecorps and organize a large scale empire siege with an circle defense + reseves in the middle. An alliance like the CA or B(l)OB, aggressive and militaristic like we are could easily realize it. Fact is: it is allready realized - but not coordinated by someone - each alliance trys to siege "their" chokepoints. A coordinated siege would be the only way to destroy other alliances. Possible that CCP would interupt this, though.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 14:11:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 14:12:41
Discorporation, it¦s no big deal for 1000 players. let¦s say 10 chokepoints that all get a local defense team. If someone wants to go offline the admiral in empire sends 1 new guy to keep the ammount of 10 campers. If the local campteam at one of the chokepoints sees an enemy 20-BS blob closing in, the admiral in the middle sends 30 BS to reeinforce the team. The enemy will send 40 BS now. So the siege team sends 50...and so on. This whole siege plan is not written down to be done here - it¦s here to show how stupid blobbing is. EVE needs anti-blobbing mechanisms. Evolution uses blobs like crazy at the moment - that¦s why you answer so much here . But believe me: blobbing will cause boredome. You wont be able to do your blobbing warfare forever - your players wont be shot down, they will simply "bore-die".
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 14:11:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 14:12:41
Discorporation, it¦s no big deal for 1000 players. let¦s say 10 chokepoints that all get a local defense team. If someone wants to go offline the admiral in empire sends 1 new guy to keep the ammount of 10 campers. If the local campteam at one of the chokepoints sees an enemy 20-BS blob closing in, the admiral in the middle sends 30 BS to reeinforce the team. The enemy will send 40 BS now. So the siege team sends 50...and so on. This whole siege plan is not written down to be done here - it¦s here to show how stupid blobbing is. EVE needs anti-blobbing mechanisms. Evolution uses blobs like crazy at the moment - that¦s why you answer so much here . But believe me: blobbing will cause boredome. You wont be able to do your blobbing warfare forever - your players wont be shot down, they will simply "bore-die".
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 14:36:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 14:37:30
Discorperation - why "gg" to these guys. Nobody can stop this uberblob of 1000 players. Even if someone would bring 2000 players the 1000 players could simply log off and go on 1 hour later...
So what i want to say is that blobbing is bad for the game. Blobbing is less fun, a lot of waisted time and causes massive boredome for PvP-players. I can¦t imagine that Evlolution enjoys this - you guys do it because you are forced to blob. So i actually want to help players like you that are stuck in their "numbers- and blob-focussing PvP-thoughts". You say, "blobbing is lame"...but it¦s not only lame, it¦s bad, boring, crap, stupid, waisted time and useless PvP. Blobbing has to go. EVE needs mechanisms that reduce blobbing. If these mechanisms don¦t come the massnapping and massblobbing will increase!!! It wont get better just because you say its "lame". It¦s still a valid tactic - it will get used and there will be groups that use it in a more extreme way than B(l)OB does it already.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 14:36:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 14:37:30
Discorperation - why "gg" to these guys. Nobody can stop this uberblob of 1000 players. Even if someone would bring 2000 players the 1000 players could simply log off and go on 1 hour later...
So what i want to say is that blobbing is bad for the game. Blobbing is less fun, a lot of waisted time and causes massive boredome for PvP-players. I can¦t imagine that Evlolution enjoys this - you guys do it because you are forced to blob. So i actually want to help players like you that are stuck in their "numbers- and blob-focussing PvP-thoughts". You say, "blobbing is lame"...but it¦s not only lame, it¦s bad, boring, crap, stupid, waisted time and useless PvP. Blobbing has to go. EVE needs mechanisms that reduce blobbing. If these mechanisms don¦t come the massnapping and massblobbing will increase!!! It wont get better just because you say its "lame". It¦s still a valid tactic - it will get used and there will be groups that use it in a more extreme way than B(l)OB does it already.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:09:00 -
[13]
Sorry Discorperation...can i call 4000+ member alliances that are allied with other 4000+ member alliances "massnapping"? Do you have a better word for this then let me know plz!
Most of our corps and our 2 allied corps (Teddys and the last Bonecolletors that are ingame) refuse to massnap or join an alliance. You said it¦s lame and yes it is - you wont see us massnapping and so you will never see the "empire siege" done by us. But hey - if we wanted to we could realize this plan with the help of an alliance. The siege plan is a plan i call "WAR" and it would really have epic dimensions. The actual blobbing here, blobbing there of alliances is the pathetic "work" of totally ineffective alliance leaders. There is simply no "plan" behind the weird things alliances do. But there is no need to discuss this plan, because there might be only 3 or 4 guys in this game that would bring up the willpower and time to organize it. I used this idea to show how stupid blobbing is - i didn¦t use it here to discuss with you if it would work or not - i would get it running if i would have 1000 alliance mates
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:09:00 -
[14]
Sorry Discorperation...can i call 4000+ member alliances that are allied with other 4000+ member alliances "massnapping"? Do you have a better word for this then let me know plz!
Most of our corps and our 2 allied corps (Teddys and the last Bonecolletors that are ingame) refuse to massnap or join an alliance. You said it¦s lame and yes it is - you wont see us massnapping and so you will never see the "empire siege" done by us. But hey - if we wanted to we could realize this plan with the help of an alliance. The siege plan is a plan i call "WAR" and it would really have epic dimensions. The actual blobbing here, blobbing there of alliances is the pathetic "work" of totally ineffective alliance leaders. There is simply no "plan" behind the weird things alliances do. But there is no need to discuss this plan, because there might be only 3 or 4 guys in this game that would bring up the willpower and time to organize it. I used this idea to show how stupid blobbing is - i didn¦t use it here to discuss with you if it would work or not - i would get it running if i would have 1000 alliance mates
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:32:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 15:44:20
Oh Sun RA - can¦t you stop claiming we want an easier game? Sec hits and fog of war map will actually hit us hard, since we will get those sec. hits for sure and my CEO Xpohoc won¦t be able to buy me an Eagle in empire and without map we won¦t see where the little miners hide and when the B(l)OB-blob approaches. And you guys could stop log of to hide on the map  .
But 1 thing is true: i don¦t like mega-alliances and B(l)OB is one of these 1000+ player alliances. What you gyus gonna do if CA has 4000 players? Nap more, blob more? That¦s no solution - you guys will all get bored of this soon. Am i wrong if i want to help to get the game back into a state where corpsized gangs fight each other? Am i lame or are you lame for "defending" you blobbing? You seem to like blobbing. I can live with blobs (simply evade) but i would prefer a better game.
Quality vs quantity - admit that people that tend to blob must be very scared and bad at PvP. And yes, it is very natural that people tend to be more aggressive if they have 50 friends with them - doenst make the individuals look better...
 Quote:
Well, what good is a hypothetical situation going to do you if you use it to illustrate a point completely unrelated to it?
Discorporation - this plan is already fact! Organized by not one group of players but by several groups of players that each camp their chokepoints mostly 23/7. A really militaristic alliance would be able to do it - that¦s no science fiction or is it since we talk about EVE?
But as i said - this scenario is fiction. But still we have this situation at all chokepoints to 0.0! So it¦s not pure fiction. Organizing such a siege would only mean all these players that camp chokepoints a lot nap...not more than 1000 players. What this fiction shows is that blobbing can only be countered by antiblobbing. There might be some corps that manage to hurt without a blob , but most players use the easy way to just antiblob if they see a blob. M0o was blobbed away so often. They started to recruit and nap to counter this. CA has a lot of enemys 20000 players vs them? They also started to use tactical blobs - but is this fun? I doubt!
The first blobbers where scared 0.0 carebears under attack by m0o - blobbing was born and it wont go away by antiblobbing and antiantiblobbing and antiantiantiblobbing...and so on. Maybe i am stupid, but i think this needs a fix.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:32:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 15:44:20
Oh Sun RA - can¦t you stop claiming we want an easier game? Sec hits and fog of war map will actually hit us hard, since we will get those sec. hits for sure and my CEO Xpohoc won¦t be able to buy me an Eagle in empire and without map we won¦t see where the little miners hide and when the B(l)OB-blob approaches. And you guys could stop log of to hide on the map .
But 1 thing is true: i don¦t like mega-alliances and B(l)OB is one of these 1000+ player alliances. What you gyus gonna do if CA has 4000 players? Nap more, blob more? That¦s no solution - you guys will all get bored of this soon. Am i wrong if i want to help to get the game back into a state where corpsized gangs fight each other? Am i lame or are you lame for "defending" you blobbing? You seem to like blobbing. I can live with blobs (simply evade) but i would prefer a better game.
Quality vs quantity - admit that people that tend to blob must be very scared and bad at PvP. And yes, it is very natural that people tend to be more aggressive if they have 50 friends with them - doenst make the individuals look better...
Quote:
Well, what good is a hypothetical situation going to do you if you use it to illustrate a point completely unrelated to it?
Discorporation - this plan is already fact! Organized by not one group of players but by several groups of players that each camp their chokepoints mostly 23/7. A really militaristic alliance would be able to do it - that¦s no science fiction or is it since we talk about EVE?
But as i said - this scenario is fiction. But still we have this situation at all chokepoints to 0.0! So it¦s not pure fiction. Organizing such a siege would only mean all these players that camp chokepoints a lot nap...not more than 1000 players. What this fiction shows is that blobbing can only be countered by antiblobbing. There might be some corps that manage to hurt without a blob , but most players use the easy way to just antiblob if they see a blob. M0o was blobbed away so often. They started to recruit and nap to counter this. CA has a lot of enemys 20000 players vs them? They also started to use tactical blobs - but is this fun? I doubt!
The first blobbers where scared 0.0 carebears under attack by m0o - blobbing was born and it wont go away by antiblobbing and antiantiblobbing and antiantiantiblobbing...and so on. Maybe i am stupid, but i think this needs a fix.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:52:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 15:54:04
No, Sun Ra - i am not bitter about B(l)OB - it¦s simply your alliance name that makes it funny to use your alliance as example. Fact is the most craziest blobbers that i saw in this game was FA hunting our 8 friggis with 200 ships!!! This is what i call totally ineffective! 200 guys in panic because we wanted to make a trip to Fountain!?!? Or maybe it wasnt panic and these guys were simply happy to see some pirates and they all wanted to be first to kill us??? Who knows?
I expect that good PvP-players see blobbing as a problem in EVE and that they help to reduce blobbing. If you don¦t like my ideas to reduce blobbing post your own ideas - but defend blobbing won¦t make me like you.
Quote:
Why is it you are always on the forums calling for changes and nerf's ?
I could answer:
...because i can
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 15:52:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Lifewire on 21/12/2004 15:54:04
No, Sun Ra - i am not bitter about B(l)OB - it¦s simply your alliance name that makes it funny to use your alliance as example. Fact is the most craziest blobbers that i saw in this game was FA hunting our 8 friggis with 200 ships!!! This is what i call totally ineffective! 200 guys in panic because we wanted to make a trip to Fountain!?!? Or maybe it wasnt panic and these guys were simply happy to see some pirates and they all wanted to be first to kill us??? Who knows?
I expect that good PvP-players see blobbing as a problem in EVE and that they help to reduce blobbing. If you don¦t like my ideas to reduce blobbing post your own ideas - but defend blobbing won¦t make me like you.
Quote:
Why is it you are always on the forums calling for changes and nerf's ?
I could answer:
...because i can
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 16:43:00 -
[19]
Quote:
Do I want 0.0 more safe ?? nope I like the thrill as it is I would like to see gatecamping ended or more entries to 0.0 but I would definitly not want these systems safe.
My corpmates and me would love to provide you with lots of these "thrills" but sorry - it¦s...
...totally uninteresting to loot your miner IIs
...nearly impossible to sneak-approach miners that can see you in local unless you use spys
So we mostly prefer camping areas with loads of traffic. We are forced to this like blobbers are forced to blob. Why should we go for your crappy fitted miner IIs - we will always try to get your refined minerals...do i have to explain this? But with a fog-of-war-map and a local chat that doesnt broadcast pirates before they loaded the screen you might get some more "thrills" - i fear you will not only get "thrills", you might start to play EVE in 0.0 nonstop paranoid.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 16:43:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Do I want 0.0 more safe ?? nope I like the thrill as it is I would like to see gatecamping ended or more entries to 0.0 but I would definitly not want these systems safe.
My corpmates and me would love to provide you with lots of these "thrills" but sorry - it¦s...
...totally uninteresting to loot your miner IIs
...nearly impossible to sneak-approach miners that can see you in local unless you use spys
So we mostly prefer camping areas with loads of traffic. We are forced to this like blobbers are forced to blob. Why should we go for your crappy fitted miner IIs - we will always try to get your refined minerals...do i have to explain this? But with a fog-of-war-map and a local chat that doesnt broadcast pirates before they loaded the screen you might get some more "thrills" - i fear you will not only get "thrills", you might start to play EVE in 0.0 nonstop paranoid.
|
| |
|