Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1182
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:15:00 -
[61] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon
its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?
you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two
While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage? |
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:17:00 -
[62] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable. It is possible to shoot people in HS. Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.
Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3270
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:18:00 -
[63] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable. It is possible to shoot people in HS. Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.
I'm pretty sure he's refering to Soundwaves quote that says ganking was never intended to be profitable.
However, I think he would also tell you that remark assumed sensible fittings and actually being somewhat attentive. As you say, any ship can be very profitable to gank if given an incredibly stupid fit and going AFK.
Mining vessels have become something of an exception to this rule. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
307
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon
its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?
you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two
While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?
it would keep people on their toes - especially because you cannot instantly stop from warp
|
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1182
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:23:00 -
[65] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable. It is possible to shoot people in HS. Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is. Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.
What things are "meant to be" and "turn out to be" can be two entirely different things. Whether CCP intended something or not, the first and foremost thing they intended was for EVE to be a sandbox of emergent, player-driver content. They gave us the tools, we create the content. CCP may or may not have 'intended' ganking to be profitable, but it's irrelevant because players can MAKE it profitable.
Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2504
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable. loot drops |
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:26:00 -
[67] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony.
Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument. |
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1182
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon
its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?
you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two
While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage? it would keep people on their toes - especially because you cannot instantly stop from warp
Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.
Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships. |
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1182
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:28:00 -
[69] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony. Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.
Actually, it is. Whenever it's possible to shoot someone, it's possible to profit from it. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean it's not credible, and it certainly doesn't make it a strawman, especially if you can't pinpoint the nature in which the argument does NOT address your own. |
Shadowschild
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:32:00 -
[70] - Quote
The problem is the existance of NPC corps. Once your character finishes the trial period, force them out. Characters not in a coproration will not benefit from concord assistance. This way corporations can go to war & fight out their differences.
Then again, keep bumping them until they have the balls to come down to nullsec where, you can actually shoot idiots that bump you. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:33:00 -
[71] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony. Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.
First, that's not what I did. (See those words in between my first sentence and asking you the question? You're meant to read those too.)
Second, when you can shoot someone, you can always profit from it. When you can collect loot from the person you shoot, that's doubly true.
Third, why should someone in an expensive ship who has made no attempt whatsoever at remaining safe in unsafe space (as all of EVE outside the Test Server explicitly is) be unprofitable to kill? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:38:00 -
[72] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.
Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships.
So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate?
Every proposed "solution" I've seen to the imaginary "problem" of bumping miners inevitably cascades into this ludicrous list of problems caused and exceptions made to fix the new problem, and problems caused by those, and so on.
Here's how you avoid being bumped. Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt. Or suicide gank the bump ships. Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.
PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3270
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:53:00 -
[73] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.
Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships. So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate? Every proposed "solution" I've seen to the imaginary "problem" of bumping miners inevitably cascades into this ludicrous list of problems caused and exceptions made to fix the new problem, and problems caused by those, and so on. Here's how you avoid being bumped. Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt. Or suicide gank the bump ships. Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all. PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves. Indeed. Be careful what you wish for is a saying that rings true in EvE every day. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
549
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:To reiterate on what people have said, this is still being discussed given the fact its a seen as a "widespread issue" by a lot of people. It's January 7th, we still have a fair number of staff who are visiting their families or otherwise taking time out over the holiday period. There'll be a response, and as was pointed out, it was stated that it'll be after the New Year. I've given the GM Team a heads up regarding this thread Thanks very much for your prompt answer. I am certainly looking forward to the GM team's final decision
|
Tarsas Phage
Disposition Matrix
114
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Here's how you avoid being bumped. Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt. Or suicide gank the bump ships. Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.
PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves.
Sigh. Let's just distill this down to its naked skeleton - Miners will always complain so long as something exists - either a mechanic or a method - which impinges on their capability to do their thing with nary a worry.
They complained about how it's too easy to get wardec'd. So wardec'ing a corp went from 2M/week to a mimimum of 50M/week.
They complained about their ships being too gankable. We now have 100k EHP Skiffs and 40k EHP Mackinaws.
They complained about can flippers. Can flippers now open themselves up to being shootable by the entire world instead of just the ill-prepared lackeys in the can's owner's corp.
They complained about Orcas having too little space to hold ore. Freighters can now scoop and dump jetcans.
They're complaining about bumping and are proposing all manners of aspects, from the absurd to the mildly ******** at best, designed to all but snuff that out.
I bet you... I freaking bet you... that if some large enough group came along and vaccuumed up all the roids in popular mining systems for themselves on a daily basis finishing only hours after downtime, we'd start seeing forum rabblerabble around that and equally ******** proposals like "mining X amount in Y time turns off your warp drive and makes you a suspect with a 6 hour timer followed by a 30 day automated ban"
It's just plain fact that these people will never be pleased so long as there's even the chance that their m3/hour stats can be impacted by something. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.
Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that.
Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
149
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses. Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that. Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment).
Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:15:00 -
[79] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that. This is EVE. CCP's game. Not Yusef's game. It doesn't matter what you think harassment means. In this context, the only relevant definition is CCP's definition.
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
284
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:21:00 -
[80] - Quote
Miner bumping is grief play IMO, being done by;
1.bored players 2.immaturity 3.lonely middle age guy who angry 4.obsessive player focusing on the lowest thing that won't fight back.
Take your pick it's probably time for those players to get their face out of the monitor and deal with RL so they won't be any of the above. |
|
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:22:00 -
[81] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Boudacca Sangrere wrote:Simple solution for miner bumping: IF the bump disrupts the miner (the module not the pilot) by forcing the bumpee out of range of the rock, then give the bumper a simple suspect flag. This would hold true to the time honored tradition of EvE that every action also has (some sort of) reaction. I am thinking this would result in places where bumping occurs become a whole lot more interesting. B. Why should miners get some special arbitrary protection from bumping? You just got a giant buff from CCP and you're already whinging for another one?
I neither mine nor gank, so this would not buff or nerf me either way. Your reaction though seems to indicate you are a tad miffed about the buff mining ships got. Frankly, after thinking ever so briefly about this, I would like to know from someone who does mine, and from someone who does bump the following:
Can a bumper prevent a NON afk miner from mining? HOW many would it take if one cannot?
IF a NON afk miner can continue to mine - then no problem with bumping. Keep and allow as is.
IF a NON afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which he clearly perpetrates The idea about module interruption is just one, I am sure there are others. Collission damage etc. will not work due to bottlenecks like Station undock etc.
B. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:23:00 -
[82] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses. Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that. Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.
So charging rent on someone who lands on Boardwalk is harassment, despite Hasbro's claims to the contrary?
When the people who make the rules for a game say that the rules allow X, X is allowed. Duh. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
149
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:24:00 -
[83] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses. Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that. Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that. So charging rent on someone who lands on Boardwalk is harassment, despite Hasbro's claims to the contrary? When the people who make the rules for a game say that the rules allow X, X is allowed. Duh.
Now you are just getting silly. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:25:00 -
[84] - Quote
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:I neither mine nor gank, so this would not buff or nerf me either way. Your reaction though seems to indicate you are a tad miffed about the buff mining ships got. Frankly, after thinking ever so briefly about this, I would like to know from someone who does mine, and from someone who does bump the following:
Can a bumper prevent a NON afk miner from mining? HOW many would it take if one cannot?
IF a non afk miner can continue to mine - then no problem with bumping. Keep and allow as is.
IF a non afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which it clearly is. The idea about module interruption is just one, I am sure there are others. Collission damage etc. will not work due to bottlenecks like Station undock etc.
B.
Mine aligned to another part of the belt or to another belt. Warp when a bumper approaches. Bumping solved by being ATK.
Exactly the same tactic that has always provided guaranteed safety from gankers. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:So charging rent on someone who lands on Boardwalk is harassment, despite Hasbro's claims to the contrary?
When the people who make the rules for a game say that the rules allow X, X is allowed. Duh. Now you are just getting silly.
You made the claim. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
560
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:27:00 -
[86] - Quote
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:IF a NON afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which he clearly perpetrates The idea about module interruption is just one, I am sure there are others. Collission damage etc. will not work due to bottlenecks like Station undock etc. Depends on the skill of the bumper and the bumpee.
Or the miner could just pay 10 million ISK and that's it.
Piugattuk wrote:Miner bumping is grief play IMO, being done by;
1.bored players 2.immaturity 3.lonely middle age guy who angry 4.obsessive player focusing on the lowest thing that won't fight back.
Take your pick it's probably time for those players to get their face out of the monitor and deal with RL so they won't be any of the above. Great answer! If you can't beat them ingame, just claim to have a better real life!
|
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
181
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:27:00 -
[87] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that. This is EVE. CCP's game. Not Yusef's game. It doesn't matter what you think harassment means. In this context, the only relevant definition is CCP's definition.
Eve is a game. This is not the real world. Just because you are so disconnected from reality that you think harassment in the true sense of the word is ONLY defined by a game company doesn't mean others will feed into your delusion.
You and others like you are so disconnected from the real world that I believe you need to have a time out |
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:27:00 -
[88] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Boudacca Sangrere wrote:I neither mine nor gank, so this would not buff or nerf me either way. Your reaction though seems to indicate you are a tad miffed about the buff mining ships got. Frankly, after thinking ever so briefly about this, I would like to know from someone who does mine, and from someone who does bump the following:
Can a bumper prevent a NON afk miner from mining? HOW many would it take if one cannot?
IF a non afk miner can continue to mine - then no problem with bumping. Keep and allow as is.
IF a non afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which it clearly is. The idea about module interruption is just one, I am sure there are others. Collission damage etc. will not work due to bottlenecks like Station undock etc.
B.
Mine aligned to another part of the belt or to another belt. Warp when a bumper approaches. Bumping solved by being ATK. Exactly the same tactic that has always provided guaranteed safety from gankers.
Not quite. There is a difference in having to move to stay in range of your currently targeted rocks, or warping off to another place. A pretty big difference actually.
B.
|
Aracimia Wolfe
Fade To Darkness
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses. Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that. Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.
And this you see is the genius of the charge for a permit. Fact of the matter is the code, and the fee turns this from a simple attempt to be annoying to a valid tactic for emergent gameplay in the sandbox.
Only the saviour of hisec could have thought of such brilliance!
On a more serious note, anyone who is anti miner bumping is also anti tackle/covops/cap bumping, anyone who is anti these highly valid methods of controlling hostiles in a fleet/small gang/solo pvp environment is at best a bit strange in the head at worst (insert ISD removeable commentry here)
The fact of the matter is that CCP would have to put new ruling in to seperate miners from other eve players, and thats just dumb. Not trying to be offensive here but really use the whole book not just the first two pages eh?
Other "effective" methods to give the miners a chance thats fine. As I've said before the New order would probably welcome the challenge, at least they're at the keyboard to try. And failing that they always have the Knight s of the New order to fall back on.
Again, repeat after me "They charge therefore it's legit"
And once again I am not part of the new order, but I do however fully and utterly approve their right to develop content for this game after their own fashion. I like my coffee like I like my men. In a plastic cup http://aracimia.blogspot.co.uk/ |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:29:00 -
[90] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.
I dunno, try the fact that cargo has dropped from ships you kill since the beginning of time? The fact that we have cargo scanners? ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. ~~~~i am god~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |