Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
553
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:21:00 -
[61] - Quote
On the flip side, if you rob the bank, you're not going to be magically held at the bank until the cops arrive and blow up your car, nor will the cops have a 100% chance of succeeding in catching you and blowing you up. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Andski wrote:once they go GCC they're free targets just fyi I'm not sure what GCC means. That's telling. Please go read up on aggression mechanics before you post your two cents in this thread.
Please tell me all about it. I'll wait for the 60 page explanation.
Oh, that's right. It being revised for just that reason... |
Ghazu
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:24:00 -
[63] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:Andski wrote:Riot Girl wrote:It's supposed to be more secure, that's why it's called highsec. You can have the strongest mercenaries in the game defending your miners, but in high sec, they still won't be as secure as they would be in lowsec. That's not something I care about because I like it when miners get ganked. I'm just pointing out that perhaps the system needs to be changed around a bit so it makes more sense. once they go GCC they're free targets just fyi If I rob a bank, the police aren't going to blow up my car and leave me to walk away, and my friends certainly will not be able pick up the bags of money and just walk away. The current system is nonsense. At the minimum, a high sec ganker should be detained, and fined, and any goods remaining would be returned to the victim. What happens right now isn't exciting emergent gameplay, its exploitative behavior of an patched together system. The only reason it exists is because of the developer's reluctance to remove player freedom.
If we are gonna be all stupid and discuss how eve should be like RL-mode then the cops wouldn't show up in 5 seconds? |
Riot Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
It would be nice if CONCORD was a bit more realistic in its resources and power, but I think that would lead to larger corps destroying the whole game. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:26:00 -
[65] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Andski wrote:once they go GCC they're free targets just fyi I'm not sure what GCC means. That's telling. Please go read up on aggression mechanics before you post your two cents in this thread. Or you could just explain what it means and why the previous statement I made that you picked up on was wrong. I'm sorry if it's beneath you to explain something like that to someone who doesn't know better for the sake of a civil discussion. Because I'm feeling particularly nice: GCC means global criminal countdown, which is basically any action that gets you concorded, also allowing other players to attack you where they couldn't before. It's any act that prompts the popup screen of "Are you sure you want to do this? Concord will kill you!"
And whenever someone steals from your can, your entire corp can attack them right from the start, the can flipper is actually not free to attack you unless you (yourself) attack them back or take from his can. If your corpmates attack him he can only shoot back at those who have shot him, not the whole corp.
One way for you to take advantage of this would be to fit a warp scrambler on your mining barge, and whenever someone can flips you you let your corpmates know and have them get ready to warp to your belt, while the would-be can flipper waits for you to take his bait (you can do enticing things like pull your drones out, bump him, etc.). Just before your corpies land in the belt, warp scramble the guy. He'll be able to shoot you, but he'll probably be more concerned with your corpmates who should have brought more than enough firepower to kill him before he does you any serious harm. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:28:00 -
[66] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Andski wrote:once they go GCC they're free targets just fyi I'm not sure what GCC means. That's telling. Please go read up on aggression mechanics before you post your two cents in this thread. Please tell me all about it. I'll wait for the 60 page explanation. Oh, that's right. It being revised for just that reason... Alt detected. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:28:00 -
[67] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:On the flip side, if you rob the bank, you're not going to be magically held at the bank until the cops arrive and blow up your car, nor will the cops have a 100% chance of succeeding in catching you and blowing you up.
If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:On the flip side, if you rob the bank, you're not going to be magically held at the bank until the cops arrive and blow up your car, nor will the cops have a 100% chance of succeeding in catching you and blowing you up. If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players... So what? It's a video game. The point is they work. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4470
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:30:00 -
[69] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
the point is that you want absolutely no risk in hisec at all whatsoever "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Riot Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:31:00 -
[70] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And whenever someone steals from your can, your entire corp can attack them right from the start
That's the part I wasn't aware of. I thought they could only help you when the shooting starts. |
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:37:00 -
[71] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:On the flip side, if you rob the bank, you're not going to be magically held at the bank until the cops arrive and blow up your car, nor will the cops have a 100% chance of succeeding in catching you and blowing you up. If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
Mechanics don't have to make real world of fantasy sense for that matter, they need to do what they are designed to do. When we question mechanics we aren't questioning realism, lots about Eve is completetly unrealistic as is the case in every game. The question is, does the mechanic do what it should? Does it work for the intended purpose? and even if it does, is the intended purpose a valid and good thing for the game.
Where back full circle and Im still looking for an answer to the question , what validity does suicide ganking have in this game? What does it add and how do we benefit from it as a wider community, not just the very tiny part of the community that executes suicide ganks.
To me, if you can answer that question confidently with a valid point, we definitly want to hear from you. The "so the game is dangers" to me while valid a silly notion, the game is dangerous without it, it depends on where you go. The argument for me here is that why does high sec have to be dangerous? How does that actually make the game better? In particular when you consider that the reason people live in high sec is so that they can PvE in saftey, another words, these are players who want to participate in the game (from the PvE side), why should there be a mechanic to detract from that?
No one is coming on the forums and claiming that Null Sec should be safer, why than does High Sec have to be more dangerous? Can the two not exist at the same time?
I think until those questions are resolved and answered, every patch that CCP is making (which I agree with the author) is designed to make high sec safer, will ultimately result in a game where High Sec is perfectly safe. So now is probably the time to make the arguments for suicide ganking if there are any to make. Its why I started the post, I think now is the time to show the outrage because I agree with the author, this is a very purposful and slow progress to making High Sec a PvE 100% safe zone and because its happening over the course of many patches rather than one big one, unless arguments are made for suicide ganking and making high sec more dangerous now, the new safe high sec will eventually be a reality. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:39:00 -
[72] - Quote
The onus, so to speak, is on those who want to change the game to make suicide ganking more marginal and rare, not on those who believe it should stay as it is now. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:41:00 -
[73] - Quote
Andski wrote:Matriarch Prime wrote:If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
the point is that you want absolutely no risk in hisec at all whatsoever
High security does usually entail...high security. It won't stop the possibility of any threats, but it is a fairly good deterrent.
The only people who would defend suicide ganking are those that wish to risk little for much gain. I'm pretty sure that goes against a much more important core principle of the game. |
Mallak Azaria
587
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:41:00 -
[74] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:It would be nice if CONCORD was a bit more realistic in its resources and power, but I think that would lead to larger corps destroying the whole game.
If they were more realistic, it would be worse for the victims. In real life, not everyone is brought to justice. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Mallak Azaria
587
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:45:00 -
[75] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:Andski wrote:Riot Girl wrote:It's supposed to be more secure, that's why it's called highsec. You can have the strongest mercenaries in the game defending your miners, but in high sec, they still won't be as secure as they would be in lowsec. That's not something I care about because I like it when miners get ganked. I'm just pointing out that perhaps the system needs to be changed around a bit so it makes more sense. once they go GCC they're free targets just fyi If I rob a bank, the police aren't going to blow up my car and leave me to walk away, and my friends certainly will not be able pick up the bags of money and just walk away. The current system is nonsense. At the minimum, a high sec ganker should be detained, and fined, and any goods remaining would be returned to the victim. What happens right now isn't exciting emergent gameplay, its exploitative behavior of an patched together system. The only reason it exists is because of the developer's reluctance to remove player freedom.
EVE isn't real life. Perhaps the main problem is that people are all too willing to compare a computer game to real life. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Riot Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:51:00 -
[76] - Quote
I don't think people want to compare it to real life, it's just that EvE is the only game that can reflect real life society as closely as it does. I think it would be a good thing for CCP to push those boundaries a little further, making the importance of your actions, reactions and consequences more meaningful and making the universe more immersive.
As you say, in real life the police don't always catch the criminals and that is why criminals take those risks in real life. If that kind of real life mechanic could be emulated in EvE, it would give the game more immersion. Criminals would have to choose their targets, assess the risks, maybe even study the security in an area before committing to the act. Maybe they will get caught and maybe they will get away with it. Either way, the game would become slightly more exciting for all parties involved. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
I was interested in seeing what you had to say until I saw "themittani.com" link. All curiosity disappeared rather quickly after that. |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
479
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Riot Girl wrote:I don't get why people cry about the mining barge buffs. It 's natural for NPC companies to develop better defences for mining ships when they are expected to be frequently attacked by pirates. People learn to adapt and develop solutions to suit their needs so it makes sense that mining ships would become stronger to suit the needs of the miners. Your correct, but in defense of the article what the author was saying is that players already had the option to adapt and they don't work for NPC corporations, they work for themselves. Tanking up a mining ship to avoid a suicide gank was extremely easy to do and 100% effective before the patch. People simply didn't do it, hence the point to make is that players refused to adapt, so CCP adapted the game for them. I agree with author that this is not a good way to go about developing a competitive game. If players can't adapt because the mechanics are unfair, than yea, fix them... but if you have the option to adapt and you simply ignore it because the rewards are better if you choose not to tank out your miner, than you have a made a conscious player choice and should live with the consequences. Thats kind of like saying that an industrial player chose not to put warp stabilizers on his industrial ship because he filled it with cargo expanders and than came to CCP and demanded 5 free points on the industrial ships because its not fair that they can be warp scrammed. I don't think anyone would agree this is a good idea, but its effectively what happen with exhumers. The only question here is should there be consequences in high sec? Is a game without consequences fun? I think these are some of the fundamental questions about suicide ganking.
Would you care to post a mining ship fit which was 100% gank proof?
Some well fitted ships cost more to gank, but there was not, is not, and should not be any mining ship which is 100% gank proof. You want fries with that? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4470
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Some well fitted ships cost more to gank, but there was not, is not, and should not be any mining ship which is 100% gank proof.
nobody ever said anything was gank-proof "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Dominee Dominee
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:23:00 -
[80] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:I was interested in seeing what you had to say until I saw "themittani.com" link. All curiosity disappeared rather quickly after that.
You missing out on a very good eve news site.
Regardless of the name - just have a look . Be surprised.
|
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:23:00 -
[81] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Riot Girl wrote:I don't get why people cry about the mining barge buffs. It 's natural for NPC companies to develop better defences for mining ships when they are expected to be frequently attacked by pirates. People learn to adapt and develop solutions to suit their needs so it makes sense that mining ships would become stronger to suit the needs of the miners. Your correct, but in defense of the article what the author was saying is that players already had the option to adapt and they don't work for NPC corporations, they work for themselves. Tanking up a mining ship to avoid a suicide gank was extremely easy to do and 100% effective before the patch. People simply didn't do it, hence the point to make is that players refused to adapt, so CCP adapted the game for them. I agree with author that this is not a good way to go about developing a competitive game. If players can't adapt because the mechanics are unfair, than yea, fix them... but if you have the option to adapt and you simply ignore it because the rewards are better if you choose not to tank out your miner, than you have a made a conscious player choice and should live with the consequences. Thats kind of like saying that an industrial player chose not to put warp stabilizers on his industrial ship because he filled it with cargo expanders and than came to CCP and demanded 5 free points on the industrial ships because its not fair that they can be warp scrammed. I don't think anyone would agree this is a good idea, but its effectively what happen with exhumers. The only question here is should there be consequences in high sec? Is a game without consequences fun? I think these are some of the fundamental questions about suicide ganking. Would you care to post a mining ship fit which was 100% gank proof? Some well fitted ships cost more to gank, but there was not, is not, and should not be any mining ship which is 100% gank proof.
When I said 100% gank proof I wasn't referring to the tank (probably should have made that more clear) but simply to the fact that people would not gank you because it wouldn't be cost effective. Ganking at least for the large majority is still a profit game. Ultimatly every ship in the game can be ganked if cost is not an issue.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
849
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:24:00 -
[82] - Quote
Andski wrote:Matriarch Prime wrote:If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
the point is that you want absolutely no risk in hisec at all whatsoever
There shouldn't be that much risk...it is afterall HIGH SECURITY SPACE. Not saying there should be no risk but yeah...it's kinda fine the way it is. |
pussnheels
553
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:24:00 -
[83] - Quote
Some times i am convinced some of you whine just for the sake of whining
the Casual gank got a bit harder and more expensive to do ...so what? Those revised barges and exhumers stats doesn't make them ungankable , contrary it made them in some cases more vulnerable to ganks especially the mack , , there are plenty of miners , i should say stupid miners that went ooh look 3 low slots lets fit in 3 MLU some rudementary tank against the rats and lets afk mine while i am watching some stupid reality show on TV they may or may not survive the casual gank depends on your skill they will however not survive a serious gank attempt because too many miners still did not learn to adapt , or have this false sense of security So yes there still plenty of gankable targets out there , it only became a bit harder setting up your gank so stop posting this crap tabout how unfair it is miners got a buff, they didn't , mining yield still the same only the shiproles got changed I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:28:00 -
[84] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Riot Girl wrote:I don't get why people cry about the mining barge buffs. It 's natural for NPC companies to develop better defences for mining ships when they are expected to be frequently attacked by pirates. People learn to adapt and develop solutions to suit their needs so it makes sense that mining ships would become stronger to suit the needs of the miners. Your correct, but in defense of the article what the author was saying is that players already had the option to adapt and they don't work for NPC corporations, they work for themselves. Tanking up a mining ship to avoid a suicide gank was extremely easy to do and 100% effective before the patch. People simply didn't do it, hence the point to make is that players refused to adapt, so CCP adapted the game for them. I agree with author that this is not a good way to go about developing a competitive game. If players can't adapt because the mechanics are unfair, than yea, fix them... but if you have the option to adapt and you simply ignore it because the rewards are better if you choose not to tank out your miner, than you have a made a conscious player choice and should live with the consequences. Thats kind of like saying that an industrial player chose not to put warp stabilizers on his industrial ship because he filled it with cargo expanders and than came to CCP and demanded 5 free points on the industrial ships because its not fair that they can be warp scrammed. I don't think anyone would agree this is a good idea, but its effectively what happen with exhumers. The only question here is should there be consequences in high sec? Is a game without consequences fun? I think these are some of the fundamental questions about suicide ganking. Would you care to post a mining ship fit which was 100% gank proof? Some well fitted ships cost more to gank, but there was not, is not, and should not be any mining ship which is 100% gank proof. When I said 100% gank proof I wasn't referring to the tank (probably should have made that more clear) but simply to the fact that people would not gank you because it wouldn't be cost effective. Ganking at least for the large majority is still a profit game. Ultimatly every ship in the game can be ganked if cost is not an issue.
This is the internet. Noone takes you for what you obviously mean, but what they can twist and contrive to their own ends...for the sake of argument. :P |
TharOkha
0asis Group
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
William Walker wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Saw the name - james 315.
Stopped right there.
It is probably best for james if folk do not encourage his really strange obsession with miners.
His article will be about miners and how they are destroying Eve. He should change his name to James One-Note.
The self obsessed ego and the miner obsessed ego. I have to agree with you there, I did find that their seemed to be some sort of deep rooted hatred of miners in the tone, but despite it I found his arguments pretty compelling as a whole. I suppose the outlining question is, would it be bad for Eve if High Sec was perfectly safe and Eve had a larger population as a trade off? What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them?
Oh you still can. But instead of suicide gank 300m+ ship by 2m destroyer, now you need at least 70m+ BC. GÇ£If reality can destroy the dream, why shouldn't the dream destroy reality?GÇ¥ |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:31:00 -
[86] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The onus, so to speak, is on those who want to change the game to make suicide ganking more marginal and rare, not on those who believe it should stay as it is now.
Perhaps it should be, but given CCP's current patching focus, it would seem that they side with a safe or at least safer for the time being, High Sec. As such I think now is the time to remind them of any valid points about why suicide ganking should remain a valid profession. I don't disagree with you though, suicide ganking has been around a very long time, it is part of the tradition and culture of the game so it really should on the anti-ganking camp to make their arguments, but in Eve just like in life things are rarely fair, just or otherwise. Another words, unless the community shows some outrage, i think a safe high sec will one day very soon be a reality in the conspiracy theorist (the author of the article) is correct in his assessment, which while I don't 100% agree with, I think has some pretty heavy handed evidence. Most of the replies that support changes for a safer high sec really are coming from high sec carebears and I think most old school Eve players will agree that these people come and go and while the arguments from this group is the same its usually not from the same accounts. Meanwhile the supporters of a dangerous game world come from older more established players. I would love to see someone with a 7 year old account come on the forums and say "get rid of suicide ganking, here is why", but unless I missed them so far I haven't seen that. Some credibility of the anti argument in the form of veteran players I think would be good for the discussion.
I have a few pro suicide ganking arguments to make myself but not being a suicide ganker I don't think I have the credentials to speak for it or against it for that matter. I do believe however its important issue as a safe high sec will most certainly change the dynamics of the game for better of or for worse.
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
135
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:37:00 -
[87] - Quote
Quote:
I was interested in seeing what you had to say until I saw "themittani.com" link. All curiosity disappeared rather quickly after that.
You missing out on a very good eve news site.
Regardless of the name - just have a look . Be surprised.
[/quote]
Agreed. Perhaps taking on the Mittani label wasn't a hot idea given his reputation, but for what its worth being a skeptic, I have read every article with a raised eye-brow and I find that while sometimes there are a few CFC and Goon jibes, the propaganda is kept to a minimum. Besides most of the good articles are of the inquisitive and opinion variety so as such they are generally skewed to the opinion of the writer which is always the case in such articles. As for battle reports they come from people that where there, so you know who's view of the battle your getting, hence its not hard to differentiate fact from opinion.
Given the alternative (EveNews24) which is nothing more than a barrage of bullshit where facts are a rare commodity, by comparison TheMittani is easily the best publication of information on the web about Eve and I would even say better than the Eve magazines.
|
Randomy Randomy
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:45:00 -
[88] - Quote
Lol.
1. You cant mine afk in high sec, because you need to switch and target a new asteroid nearly after every cycle.
2. It's just a ganker's whine thread from a one sided ganker perspecive who only play a little aspect of EVE ( ganking miners in high security space), and makes conclusions for the whole game, so the article is everything but not objective.
3. New players and carebears still have a lot of fail and error that can occur while they play even if they never mining at all -> EVE is still a hard game for newbies and everyone else too.
(4. Why ganking a miner is so good? I rather gank a hauler to make a profit. but ganking a hauler is hard and you need patience, so its easier to gank a miner for 0% profit just to blow up someone and feel yourself evil, etc maybe, I don't know. Ganking miners would be fun for a short time, but in long term, I think it cause pleasure only to people who have some mental trouble. IMO.) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4472
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:46:00 -
[89] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Andski wrote:Matriarch Prime wrote:If the cop could warp to the banks location in a moments notice...yeah, I think they could pull it off. You do understand analogy though right? The point is that the mechanics don't make any sense to anyone else but eve players...
the point is that you want absolutely no risk in hisec at all whatsoever There shouldn't be that much risk...it is afterall HIGH SECURITY SPACE. Not saying there should be no risk but yeah...it's kinda fine the way it is.
there isn't much risk for those who take steps to mitigate it, which is fine
what some people want, however, is to be able to autopilot their officer fit tengus with plex in the hold between market hubs "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Hestia Mar
Calmaretto
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:50:00 -
[90] - Quote
Another butthurt "I want EVE to be played my way wah wah wah" thread...people tend to forget that the membership of Goonswarm, and those who actually visit the forums, only represent a very small proportion of the total EVE player base.
What the Goonies in turn seem to forget, is that for most players, EVE is a casual pursuit, not a meta game. I suggest Goons go off and find something more in line with their requirements, rather that trying to change something that most players are generally happy with.
Nothing new here. Move on. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |