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) |
ed jeni
SKULLDOGS RED.OverLord
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:45:00 -
[121] - Quote
if having a safer hisec increases the amount of players in eve, and that increase has a trickle down to null, then i cant see the problem, a healthy increase in subscriber numbers benifits us all, so meh |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
138
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:48:00 -
[122] - Quote
Cid SilverWing wrote:Classic case of scrub. Goon whines that hisec ganking isn't easy enough.
If EVE didn't have miners, PvP'ers would be forced to do the mining themselves or biomass themselves and uninstall.
Miners need PvPers and PvPers need miners. If there's no business being made, war cannot be conducted. War profits from conflict, conflict profits from logistics (mining, refining, production and distribution).
Or think of it this way
Mine rocks, make stuff -> Stuff kills stuff -> Mine rocks, make stuff
This wheel is what drives EVE.
Aren't suicide gankers part of the that wheel though? I guess what I'm saying is that there is no historical information on which to draw a conclusion in an Eve where suicide gankers don't exist, because they have always been there. They have always been part of the wheel. Assuming players can't kill each other in High Sec, than, what happens to Eves economy? What is the impact on Eve when we eliminate this reducing effect?
Its worth pointing out as well that suicide gankers have always existed side by side with miners, and there always have and continue to be an unlimited supply of people willing to mine.
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
138
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:52:00 -
[123] - Quote
ed jeni wrote:if having a safer hisec increases the amount of players in eve, and that increase has a trickle down to null, then i cant see the problem, a healthy increase in subscriber numbers benifits us all, so meh
Yeah.. I think that pretty much sums it up for me in the broad scope of things. While Im hesistant to speculate what would happen to Eves economy without suicide gankers and "total safety" in high sec, I would gladly accept those consequences if part of that result is an increase in subscriber numbers. After all, more subscribers, means more CCP money, which hopefully means more Eve development. If part of that package is inflation of resources prices, I think I can live with that, after all, lower resource prices means cheaper ships which consequently means more PvP, and in turn most likely a larger portion of the population might be willing to risk going out and giving PvP a try.
I think there is a lot of logic there, I just wonder if making High Sec safe would really have that result, that being, high subscriber numbers?
|
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
482
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:56:00 -
[124] - Quote
Andski wrote:npc posting alts are hilarious
So, once again you are alt posting? You want fries with that? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
811
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:57:00 -
[125] - Quote
Crimewatch is the next tip of the hat in which way CCP is going to go.
Version 1.0 of Crimewatch, Suspects (Can-flippers) couldn't even shoot back to protect themselves.
This article is more than tin-foil-hattery.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Din Chao
Seraphim Initiative
72
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:00:00 -
[126] - Quote
ed jeni wrote:if having a safer hisec increases the amount of players in eve, and that increase has a trickle down to null, then i cant see the problem, a healthy increase in subscriber numbers benifits us all, so meh My question is, though, if the new players are showing up because of "carebear buffs", should we expect that these players venture beyond high sec with the same frequency as those of us who play now? |
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:00:00 -
[127] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Its worth pointing out as well that suicide gankers have always existed side by side with miners, and there always have and continue to be an unlimited supply of people willing to mine.
I don't remember too much in the way of suicide gankers, ganking miners prior to the first Hulkageddon.
Suicide pilots only have themselves to blame for the changes (if they don't like the changes). Like anything if people push things to the limit, then they'll be changes. So people should be thanking the the first organiser and Goons/Mittens for the new mining ship changes.
Actually it's funny that the same people moaning about the changes are the ones that's are responsible in part for them. |
ed jeni
SKULLDOGS RED.OverLord
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
Quote:My question is, though, if the new players are showing up because of "carebear buffs", should we expect that these players venture beyond high sec with the same frequency as those of us who play now?
i would guess that a whole bunch of these "supposed" new carebear subs would stay in the safe environs of hisec but some will venture out further afield and bolster the population of lo and null sec, and any increase in these populations has to be a good thing for null and lo pvp not to mention increased sub numbers for ccp (we know how hilmar likes to monitor subs before investing in new devs)
so whats the downside ?
lack of non consensual pvp in hisec no more ganking
cant see that being a big issue, if the gankers wanna gank then go to losec or null and try see how you get on there, there will still be noobs to pick on only thing is your gonna have to do it outside of hisec,
the possible benefits IMO however outweigh the tears of players who like to pick on hisec players,
there is room in eve for both playstyles and adapting game mechanics in hisec doesnt really upset anyone bar goonie pubbies |
Gun Gal
Dark Club
90
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:19:00 -
[129] - Quote
Look another mittani self ************ post.
This, coming from the guy and corp that's turned null into a a carebear land. |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
140
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:23:00 -
[130] - Quote
Sabrina Solette wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Its worth pointing out as well that suicide gankers have always existed side by side with miners, and there always have and continue to be an unlimited supply of people willing to mine.
I don't remember too much in the way of suicide gankers, ganking miners prior to the first Hulkageddon. Suicide pilots only have themselves to blame for the changes (if they don't like the changes). Like anything if people push things to the limit, then they'll be changes. So people should be thanking the the first organiser and Goons/Mittens for the new mining ship changes. Actually it's funny that the same people moaning about the changes are the ones that's are responsible in part for them.
Well, I'm not sure how long you have played this game (assuming your using a posting alt) but suicide ganking before Hulkagedon was far broader of a phenomenon which included pretty much any target on which one could make a profit. Not sure about the frequency, as I have said, I have never been ganked, no one has ever attempted to gank me and I have never seen a gank in progress in 6 + years of playing this game so to me the whole thing is kind of a myth. gf the forums are any indication, however, suicide ganking was definitely more prevalent back in the day. That or people complained about it more back than. In any case it became more focused during the hulkagedon on miners specifically, and naturally their is a connection between that ongoing event and exhumer buffs. But I find it kind of an inconsistent response by CCP, I mean tomorrow Goons might decide its "Industrialgedon"... so what are we going to do? Buff every ship anytime an alliance makes a ganking event around it?
I guess what I'm driving at here is that, I don't see how making sweeping game changes in response to player events is in the spirit of Eve. CCP seemingly, at least in the public eye (as the author pointed out) encourages player events and seems to thrive on the publicity for their game when they occur, yet they turn around and suddenly present us with changes to the game that prevent such a thing from happening in the future. Which suggests that they obviously don't want us to organize in this fashion.
I think the author of this article makes a good point about this connection and I do believe that its a very unhealthy approach. I'm not saying I support suicide ganking here, as I still am yet to hear a reasonable argument for its existance, but certainly I support many other types of mechanics in which players are thrown to the spear through organization of events by players.. like war decs for example. Can we expect that everytime players organize an event and the results are "people get blown up" that their will be a game mechanic to prevent that event in the future?
I think that's the point the author is kind of driving home here. This is less about suicide ganking and more about how CCP responds to the organization of player driven content/events. Is this the new status quo? Next time I war dec someone can I expect the game to be nerfed to discourage me from doing it?
|
|
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction
263
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:28:00 -
[131] - Quote
Oh yeah? Once I saw it was a "mining-barge-buff-whine" article, I immediatly stopped. What kind of person would think EVERY eve player should read this?
Let me answer that for you; an *******.
edit: That censored word is another word for anus. |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
140
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:30:00 -
[132] - Quote
Gun Gal wrote:Look another mittani self ************ post.
This, coming from the guy and corp that's turned null into a a carebear land.
Clearly you where not in null sec last night.
http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=12325 http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=12327 http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=12290
When was the last time you saw that in carebear land?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
579
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:31:00 -
[133] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Amount of Risk Involved:
Null Sec > Low Sec > High Sec
Amount of Isk that can be earnt per hour:
Null Sec > Low Sec > High Sec
"Ideal" Character progression (i.e. what you want the majority of players to do):
Highsec -> Low Sec -> Null Sec
As a rule of thumb anything you can do in empire should be more profitable (assuming you don't die) or you can do it better/longer/faster/stronger in Low Sec.
Then anything you can do in Low Sec is more profitable in Null Sec.
You missed the Elite zone a.k.a. Wormholes. There are a lot of wormhole systems. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
140
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:36:00 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:That censored word is another word for anus.
Yeah I got that, it wasn't that hard to figure out. You are right it is partially a mining barge buff whine, but that's not really what we are talking about here so how about instead of looking like a jack ass in an otherwise mostly productive discussion, you just take a pass on it. |
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:46:00 -
[135] - Quote
ed jeni wrote:Quote:My question is, though, if the new players are showing up because of "carebear buffs", should we expect that these players venture beyond high sec with the same frequency as those of us who play now? i would guess that a whole bunch of these "supposed" new carebear subs would stay in the safe environs of hisec but some will venture out further afield and bolster the population of lo and null sec, and any increase in these populations has to be a good thing for null and lo pvp not to mention increased sub numbers for ccp (we know how hilmar likes to monitor subs before investing in new devs) so whats the downside ? lack of non consensual pvp in hisec no more ganking cant see that being a big issue, if the gankers wanna gank then go to losec or null and try see how you get on there, there will still be noobs to pick on only thing is your gonna have to do it outside of hisec, the possible benefits IMO however outweigh the tears of players who like to pick on hisec players, there is room in eve for both playstyles and adapting game mechanics in hisec doesnt really upset anyone bar goonie pubbies
Problem with high-sec (new players) is that they can't make much isk to start with and as they have skill books to buy and implants they can't afford to lose much.
1) Jump-clone standing at 8.0 is far too high, it should be around 2.0.
The low isk making of new players lock them into high-sec once fitted with implants of +3 and above. (Could get over this by buying PLEX, but that not really an acceptable work around for most people).
2) NPC corps, reduce the willingness to join player corps due to the fact you can't get back to the starter corp once you've joined a player corp (if that player corp proves to be not a great place to be).
3) Many corps not accepting new players or players without certain training. A lot of player corps are just as responsible for keeping players in high-sec by not being willing to take on and train new pilots.
I think the biggest problem EVE has though is the fact it does not really have the same feel of being an MMO as other MMOs do. Due mainly to the chat system and the fact we don't see other peoples characters (ships) very often. Plus with the EVE idea of don't trust people in EVE pug groups are less likely to form. Sometimes the forums seem more of an MMO than the game does. I'm sure that a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but it is looking at the game from a player's view in an NPC corp, althought some players in NPC corps work to improve them.
|
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:54:00 -
[136] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:Sabrina Solette wrote:Kryss Darkdust wrote:Its worth pointing out as well that suicide gankers have always existed side by side with miners, and there always have and continue to be an unlimited supply of people willing to mine.
I don't remember too much in the way of suicide gankers, ganking miners prior to the first Hulkageddon. Suicide pilots only have themselves to blame for the changes (if they don't like the changes). Like anything if people push things to the limit, then they'll be changes. So people should be thanking the the first organiser and Goons/Mittens for the new mining ship changes. Actually it's funny that the same people moaning about the changes are the ones that's are responsible in part for them. Well, I'm not sure how long you have played this game (assuming your using a posting alt) but suicide ganking before Hulkagedon was far broader of a phenomenon which included pretty much any target on which one could make a profit. Not sure about the frequency, as I have said, I have never been ganked, no one has ever attempted to gank me and I have never seen a gank in progress in 6 + years of playing this game so to me the whole thing is kind of a myth. gf the forums are any indication, however, suicide ganking was definitely more prevalent back in the day. That or people complained about it more back than. In any case it became more focused during the hulkagedon on miners specifically, and naturally their is a connection between that ongoing event and exhumer buffs. But I find it kind of an inconsistent response by CCP, I mean tomorrow Goons might decide its "Industrialgedon"... so what are we going to do? Buff every ship anytime an alliance makes a ganking event around it? I guess what I'm driving at here is that, I don't see how making sweeping game changes in response to player events is in the spirit of Eve. CCP seemingly, at least in the public eye (as the author pointed out) encourages player events and seems to thrive on the publicity for their game when they occur, yet they turn around and suddenly present us with changes to the game that prevent such a thing from happening in the future. Which suggests that they obviously don't want us to organize in this fashion.I think the author of this article makes a good point about this connection and I do believe that its a very unhealthy approach. I'm not saying I support suicide ganking here, as I still am yet to hear a reasonable argument for its existance, but certainly I support many other types of mechanics in which players are thrown to the spear through organization of events by players.. like war decs for example. Can we expect that everytime players organize an event and the results are "people get blown up" that their will be a game mechanic to prevent that event in the future? I think that's the point the author is kind of driving home here. This is less about suicide ganking and more about how CCP responds to the organization of player driven content/events. Is this the new status quo? Next time I war dec someone can I expect the game to be nerfed to discourage me from doing it?
I underlined the part I wanted to address (because I'm too lazy to edit, and context and all that)
I don't think the article really makes that case. It is clear that ship revision is an ongoing effort, I think the arguement that the changes to miners were targeted to specifically stop ganking can be clearly unsupported by that simple observation. That is unless you hold to the opinion that the rest of the ship revisions are all in an effort hide CCP's "true purpose" of making carebear, afk mining appealing.
You could make the case that past changes have been made to insure that high security ganking doesn't become more prevalent by being hugely profitable.
The only way I see high security ganking as a valid tactic is if it were part of a larger strategic initiative on the part of low/null sec corporations to preserve profit margins. I think that would be in the spirit of eve. The risk is large scale ship losses on the bet that margins for low/null sec material become more desirable.
Ganking for the lulls, or some some strange hatered of high sec miners or gaming the security mechanics? No, I don't agree that that gameplay should specifically be preserved. |
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
140
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:54:00 -
[137] - Quote
Quote:I think the biggest problem EVE has though is the fact it does not really have the same feel of being an MMO as other MMOs do. Due mainly to the chat system and the fact we don't see other peoples characters (ships) very often. Plus with the EVE idea of don't trust people in EVE pug groups are less likely to form. Sometimes the forums seem more of an MMO than the game does. I'm sure that a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but it is looking at the game from a player's view in an NPC corp, althought some players in NPC corps work to improve them.
I don't disagree with you, quite to the contrary, Eve in fact is unlike any other MMO but no question about it that this is the exact reason most Eve players, in particular veterans of Eve play this game.
For me, since Eve, every MMO I have tried to play has been an utter and complete disappointment. The primary reason (again just personal opinion here) is that every MMO out there has ZERO consequence for my actions. There is nothing to lose, not much to gain and it all boils down to a predictable treadmill. With Eve, every single day that I log in is a complete and utter unknown. Maybe that wormhole will be empty and me and my crew can poach it, maybe we will spend the night swapping paint or maybe we find a connection to 0.0 and go do something there... and so on. This however is only interesting because of the consequences, because of the interaction and because of the fact that players have more freedom to act as they please.
I don't really know how suicide ganking fits into all this, but ultimately if you aren't ready to get out of the routine of trying to play Eve as if it was (pardon the pun) World of Warcraft, than strictly speaking, your not really an Eve audience and probably won't spend the next six years paying subscription fee's on three accounts.
So while I agree that eve doesn't feel like your every other MMO, in a way that's the whole bloody point and why we are here (and when I say we, I mean people who agree with me, like, everyone I play with).
|
Jimmy Gunsmythe
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
148
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:56:00 -
[138] - Quote
And this is why stupid people should never be allowed to vote.
It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
952
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:57:00 -
[139] - Quote
On tanking the old barges: It was like adding a few layers of extra heavy cardboard to a tissue paper ship. There was nothing you could do to get any barge over 100,000 EHP. The result is many people did not even try. "Why bother? The gankers will just bring one more cat" they said, so they want for yield instead.
Now actually tanking the barge makes sense, so people are doing it. I have heard far more talk about tanking up barges now than before the change.
"Whats the point of more subs if I cannot shoot them?"
Consider two options:
High sec is kept as is. Result: Many will not sub, and as a result you cannot shoot them. CCP gets less money for developing new features.
High sec is made safe: Many will sub and you cannot shoot them. CCP gets more money for doing stuff like fixing low sec and Soverenty.
In both cases you cannot shoot a large number of people. You cannot shoot them if they are not even in the game! But more resources for CCP to make a better game overall is desirable.
"Who cares if there are a pile of people in high sec being totally safe?"
There are several issues. Anything that anyone does in game effects the game economy. Miners selling ore effect the economy. The argument is "They can effect the economy that effects me, and I cannot effect them back (by shooting them)". Another issue is null sec alliances hide industrial and logistical operations in high sec in NPC corps. At present the only way to attack these ships is suicide ganks.
Both of these objections ignore one fact: There are many more ways to do PvP than shooting ships. For example, the market. Or in the case of industry, just doing it better than the enemy, with greater efficiency.
Another issue with a safe high sec is will it crash the economy. I think not. First because as noted above there are other forms of PvP that will still be present in high sec. Second, CCP is watching the issue closely and can change stuff if needed. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Din Chao
Seraphim Initiative
73
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 13:58:00 -
[140] - Quote
Sabrina Solette wrote:2) NPC corps, reduce the willingness to join player corps due to the fact you can't get back to the starter corp once you've joined a player corp (if that player corp proves to be not a great place to be). Not sure what you mean here. Are you under the impression that once you join a player corp, you can't return to an NPC corp? |
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
140
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:03:00 -
[141] - Quote
Quote:
I underlined the part I wanted to address (because I'm too lazy to edit, and context and all that)
I don't think the article really makes that case. It is clear that ship revision is an ongoing effort, I think the arguement that the changes to miners were targeted to specifically stop ganking can be clearly unsupported by that simple observation. That is unless you hold to the opinion that the rest of the ship revisions are all in an effort hide CCP's "true purpose" of making carebear, afk mining appealing.
You could make the case that past changes have been made to insure that high security ganking doesn't become more prevalent by being hugely profitable.
The only way I see high security ganking as a valid tactic is if it were part of a larger strategic initiative on the part of low/null sec corporations to preserve profit margins. I think that would be in the spirit of eve. The risk is large scale ship losses on the bet that margins for low/null sec material become more desirable.
Ganking for the lulls, or some some strange hatered of high sec miners or gaming the security mechanics? No, I don't agree that that gameplay should specifically be preserved.
Yeah I think that's a fair assessment and you may be right, the exhumer patch may simply be a minor blurp in an otherwise unchanged high sec future. I suppose time will only tell. Officially CCP devs have stuck to their guns and proclaimed on a number of occasions that High Sec will keep some of its inherent risks like suicide ganking and personally I'm fine with it, in particular since it has never affected me. Suffice to say however I do defend the spirit of Eve's sandbox in which players organize and execute and while the events are often at the expense of other Eve players, it is part of Eve's spirit to be a competitive and cut throat game, an aspect of the game that I think is a requirement for it to remain a good game. As a World of Warcraft wanna be, aka consequence free PvP or PvE game, Eve really sucks ass. Its the inherent player interaction that makes this game amazing. Chip away at that and you chip away at the foundation for that amazing gameplay.
|
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:06:00 -
[142] - Quote
Din Chao wrote:Sabrina Solette wrote:2) NPC corps, reduce the willingness to join player corps due to the fact you can't get back to the starter corp once you've joined a player corp (if that player corp proves to be not a great place to be). Not sure what you mean here. Are you under the impression that once you join a player corp, you can't return to an NPC corp?
You can't return to the NPC starter corp that you started in, you end up in one of what I call the drop-out NPC corps where other ex-player corp pilots go. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
184
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:13:00 -
[143] - Quote
I didn't read the whole thing yet, too long and i get where people of a certain perspective might just see it as a ganker whine.
But there are some things in the part of the article I've read so far that are spot on.
Quote:It's generally accepted that making a carebear-friendly game is good for business. While some players may enjoy EVE's cutthroat, no-holds-barred atmosphere, most gamers just can't handle it. MMOs are designed to tap into the part of the brain that takes pleasure in the feeling of slow, steady progression. Games like World of Warcraft are painstakingly structured to hand out rewards to players just often enough to keep them engaged. Negative feedback doesn't fit into the equation. People don't like being forced backward. So in most MMOs, losses--if they ever occur--have minimal impact on the player, who is always moving forward. Onward and upward.[/quote]
That simple paragraph details what makes EVE different, what makes EVE unique, the [i]spirit[/i ]of the game.
It also details the things the carebear crowd wants to dismantle every time they post "EVE would get so many more subs if" threads. Because god forbid there is [b]one game in the whole universe that doesn't coddle us.
EVE ruined other games for me, before EVE I was perfectly happy like the rest of the gaming world being made to believe I was some really tough bullet eating soldier in Call of Duty, and perfectly happy to let game makers put me in the posistion of being the one and only unique hero of the universe....
...Then I downloaded EVE in 2007 and let CCP DEMONSTRATE to me that I was just a scrub, one of many people flying a super squishy space ship that WILL die no matter how good I am, and that the only thing I can do is get another ship and fly out to die in another blaze of pixilated glory. Sure, the LORE of the game says Im some "elite of mankind" pod pilot, but the GAME says "BLAP now get another ship".
Now when I try to play some theme park mmo or some story driven single player game that I'm going to play for 32 hours before I "win", i just can't get all that worked up, i discovered I like the raw , life-like unforgiving reality of EVE and I can't go back to fantasy land.
Why people can't accept EVE's core concept as it is (and leave if they don't like, STO is available) is beyond me. |
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:18:00 -
[144] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Why people can't accept EVE's core concept as it is (and leave if they don't like, STO is available) is beyond me.
To be fair, STO is pretty terrible. :) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1306
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:19:00 -
[145] - Quote
Dominee Dominee wrote: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. Its 100 times better than the dribble that falls out of the mouth of Riverini My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
184
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:21:00 -
[146] - Quote
Matriarch Prime wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Why people can't accept EVE's core concept as it is (and leave if they don't like, STO is available) is beyond me. To be fair, STO is pretty terrible. :)
Which is even MORE reason for the "change the game" crowd to migrate there, imagine how much better they could make STO by stopping suicide ganking klingon warbirds and AFK-cloaked Science ships!
|
Matriarch Prime
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:29:00 -
[147] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Matriarch Prime wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Why people can't accept EVE's core concept as it is (and leave if they don't like, STO is available) is beyond me. To be fair, STO is pretty terrible. :) Which is even MORE reason for the "change the game" crowd to migrate there, imagine how much better they could make STO by stopping suicide ganking klingon warbirds and AFK-cloaked Science ships!
You could say that. The reality is that it is hot mess of ability bloat which tries to hide fundamentally simplistic gameplay.
Good thing it is free now. That's the only price point that could make it viable. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
320
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:32:00 -
[148] - Quote
Read the first half of a paragraph, didnt bother reading the rest because it has been incredibly obvious to anyone who has been following the recent changes and all greyscales hurf blurfing about crimewatch that this is what CCP are doing. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
314
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:34:00 -
[149] - Quote
If hi-sec was totally safe, it would not affect me unless it caused a ton of people to un-sub. Selective Pressure [FOVRA] is now recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1797934#post1797934 |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1306
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 14:40:00 -
[150] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Read the first half of a paragraph, didnt bother reading the rest because it has been incredibly obvious to anyone who has been following the recent changes and all greyscales hurf blurfing about crimewatch that this is what CCP are doing. It struck me as odd that the person they put in charge of bring the code and workings of 'Crimewatch' is a renowned Carebear and Industrialist
Take Greyscale off Crimewatch and get him working on the POS revamp right away!
Put a dev on Crimewatch that actually spends time in-game shootign at people for fun. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
|
|
|
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 |