|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1113
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 04:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
WTFAMILOOKINGAT wrote:Athena Themis wrote:Sentient Blade wrote:BillyBanter wrote: Once the sec status of the alt character is too low, they replace it with a new one. Which is a bannable offence if they're recycling them. LOL....no. Sure it is, been considered an exploit since forever. Are you stupid or just new here?
Because ditching a 51-day refer-a-friend account is a big deal right?
You have to be pants on head ******** to actually want to grind sec status back from suicide ganking (unless that's your thing)- just make a 51 day alt, train into a thrasher/rupture/tornado, gank at will, when the account expires, or your sec status is too difficult to manage (because you're an idiot), make a new alt account.
Edit: I only read the 1st page, and just assumed the next 22 pages was just pubbies whining at each other, you know- like the rest of this forum. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1113
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
SlayerOfArgus wrote::words:
Or hey- contract your potential 'belongings' to be 'moved' to someone else with 'collateral'
For other helpful tips and or future gaming advice: Click Me! Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1118
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ra Jackson wrote:As it sounds from the OP the bumping is just to annoy the freighter pilot and force him log off as he cannot do anything else. Calling it "preparing for a gank" is a little far stretched, but I'll leave that to CCP to decide.
Sounds like you're talking out of your ass.
Bumping sadly, is a perfectly viable game mechanic, and will remain so- as what GM wants to deal with that floodgate of reimbursement requests should they change it. Furthermore, freighting much like anything else that happens in High Sec, isn't as safe as you bleating idiots want to pretend it is, stop crying. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1122
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 18:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
D'Om K'vash wrote:I second this. Goons should have to commit. 15minute aggression timer for a ship that makes no aggression is beyond absurd. Ganking should not be so easy of a freighter in high sec. Also bumping for more then a few minutes in high sec is with no consequences is also absurd. It should be considered harassment. But ccp is just a bunch of goon lackeys so I'm sure you'll see no change because half of ccp is goons and all but 2 of csm is goons. They are more then the Bernie Madolfs they are the mitt Romneys of eve.
Oh I heard you wanted to do whatever you want in High Sec.
How Novel. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1122
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
D'Om K'vash wrote:My opinion is that 15min aggression timer applied to player who has committed no aggression is not a good game mechanic and bumping for extended periods of time in high sec against non wts should be considered harassment or get aggression.
Do you have any idea how incessantly difficult things would be if bumping someone gave you aggression, or if bumping itself didn't exist. It's a viable game mechanic, it isn't an exploit, and more often than not it can be used to get a kill that would otherwise escape.
There will continue to be PvP in EVE no matter if you want it or not. The base appeal for this game is its tolerance of non-consensual PvP, if you don't like that, play something else.
D'Om K'vash wrote:If you hava counter argument to this please post but if you are just a goon or pirate ganker with the advice of ".. uh well don't put 10 bil in your hold" then please just go back to your 10 accounts in niarja and gank more people so we can get this game mechanic changed by ccp.
People are disagreeing with you not because "LOLGOONS" but because your argument is exactly opposed to what this game is about, High Sec is just that; It's not called Total Sec for a reason, there are tons of ways to avoid being ganked. Goons or anyone else that suicide ganks freighters will continue to do so because people (read: you) are entirely too stupid, can't be bothered, or just flat out refuse to take a few minutes to sort things out so they arn't flying around Empire with neon crosshairs hanging over their heads.
Regardless as to what you think about it, it's been this way for years, isn't changing- and it's pretty much a crystal clear case of 'adapt or die', or you know pay someone else to move your space pixels for you with proper collateral (at least when THEY get blown up YOU lose nothing).
D'Om whatever wrote: You guys only consider what is good for you and the goons. ( who are the richest and most well off in this game) You never consider what is good for the game or other players. So get out of here with that bull **** statement like goons have ever considered anyone's arguments but their own.
You mean like that broad generalization of a counter-argument that is literally screaming 'I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OTHER ASPECT OF THE GAME, ONLY HIGHSEC, BUT CHANGE THIS **** BECAUSE ITS UNFAIR FOR ME IN HIGHSEC REGARDLESS OF HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT THE REST OF THE GAME' and is completely and sweepingly different than Goons making propositions to change game mechanics that are good for Goons. Could you be any less informed?
So, I believe it is you sir, that needs to :getout: Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
D'Om K'vash wrote: if high sec freighter pilots are to be put under a rule that was made for null sec super caps to prevent them from logging off then they should be given super cap defensive capabilities.
You're absolutely correct space friend, give freighters super capital defensive capabilities, along with the pricetag, and inability to dock in stations...
Oh wait- did that just break the purpose of them being freighters?
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
gabrial13 wrote:...it would likely provide extra sweet killmails
And this is why nobody gives a **** about Noir. anymore.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1151
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
gabrial13 wrote:Xolve wrote:gabrial13 wrote:...it would likely provide extra sweet killmails And this is why nobody gives a **** about Noir. anymore. Troll much?
That Sir, was not a troll, but an admission of truth.
Your alliance is about as relevant as 'Maru Kage' was right up until they reneged on that deal. In the mean time you'rea bunch of washed up scrubs that take EVE too seriously and havn't been taken seriously by anyone else for well over 3 years. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 05:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
gabrial13 wrote:Logged in ,undocked and cloaked for a long time, does that count?
No, it does not.
Back to your corner plebe. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
gabrial13 wrote:So Noir. hasnt been in the news lately , whats your point?
Surely by 'lately' you mean 'years', and that friend is our point.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1153
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 08:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
gabrial13 wrote:okay for the 3rd time and i say this to all goonswarm members in this thread so there is no confusion Noir. has not been in the news for years , But what is your point relating to this thread...
Since this thread is directly discussing GoonSwarm, and the members of GoonSwarm's activities I would venture to say that anyone in GoonSwarm can **** this up as they please, preferrably free of the boring and uninformed opinions of 'space mercenary' pubbies and their redundant questions about their misconstrued heteronormative killboard **** measuring contests.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
|
|