Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17091
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 18:28:00 -
[331] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote:It has come to my attention that a lot of players complain about being bumped in hi security space and they cant do nothing but move to a different solar system. it is a broken mechanic rule. CCP disagree, you should read the GM posts in this thread.
Quote:There should be a way to retaliate with this lowest of scum. There should be some game mechanic that prevents players from hiding in NPC corporations to do their dirty work. There is, it's called suicide ganking, and players hiding in NPC corps goes both ways, miners and haulers do their dirty work while hiding under the NPC corps skirts too.
Quote:I propose a suspect flag for NPC corp characters that bump. If they are in a player corp, thn business as usual, this way the would be bumpers will have to be subject to retaliation/ wardecs for their actions. Most bumpers are already in player corporations, your suggestion will have about as much effect as a sticking plaster on an arterial wound.
Quote:At this point the only thing you can do is run to another system and i think that is idiotic. Lets make the miners run all the time. Help us make a stand so we can defend ourselves. Last time i checked the rebalanceing of the gameplay was to make it more war friendly.
Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. Miners and other highsec residents have access to the self same mechanics as everybody else, including the mechanics of wardeccing, suicide ganking and bumping. It's just that most of them can't be bothered to use them.
Psychotic Monk for CSM 9 |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
712
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:19:00 -
[332] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote:IIshira wrote:Lakotnik wrote:Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable. What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me. Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.
If you had bumping cause damage that would mean someone would get destroyed by CONCORD in highsec since it would be an aggressive action. That would be a disaster in Jita.
Same thing for suspect flags. You would have people going suspect accidentally. |
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 08:04:00 -
[333] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea! RS PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels?
You know, in real life when you get into an automobile accident the police are required to be involved....its called the law.......just saying
As a matter of fact, those who choose to operate an automobile on a public road are required to carry liability insurance at the minimum to pay for the victims damaged vehicle.
Furthermore, this could solve a couple of issues in the game: 1. Prevent intentional bumping in the game with no risk or cost. 2. Prevent massive capital hot drops with sentries as the capitals would destroy their sentries and each other if they move. 3. Require players to actually pay attention and PILOT their ships while considering their relative position in space. 4. Provide an alternative means to getting through gate camps via battering ram fits. 5. I could think of so many benefits.... 6. It would keep people from sitting out in front of Jita looking for easy kills as they may end up concording themselves |
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 08:25:00 -
[334] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote: Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.
CCP could just make a module or a rig thats called an "Inertial Gravitational Stabilization Anti-Collision Containment Field" that any ship could fit. (Make Freighters and Jump Freighters have 1 slot that allows this module or just make it a ship specific trait)
That way, players can choose if they want to be harassed and the tin-hat wearing idiots won't have to worry about being reported if they "target the next system but not the player from the previous system whom is feeling harassed now for not paying the self-proclaimed mining tax in addition to the ludicrous 19% VAT for each monthly subscription." |
Tacomaco
No Taxes just fun
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:26:00 -
[335] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote: Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
11-12k tones of Cruiser bumps into a 10k tones Mining barge. Who's getting damaged, the cruiser of course...
Also the mining barge doesn't take any damage because if a smaller car hits a larger one, only the large car takes damage.
Afk miners and New Order, not sure witch ones bumped their heads harder.
|
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
513
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 13:20:00 -
[336] - Quote
Good god people, give it a break! Its a game mechanic! If you dont like it, dont play!! Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
Clara Pond
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:28:00 -
[337] - Quote
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:09:00 -
[338] - Quote
Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. |
Jack Lennox
Killing With a Smile
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 10:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.
As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Been ganked? Robbed? Space feelings hurt?-á Now there's something you can do! Fill out a Customer Service Comment Card!-á EIther that or contact everyone's favorite Space Detective for an instant ban! |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 14:44:00 -
[340] - Quote
Jack Lennox wrote:Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post. They can decide how good a deal it was. |
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
822
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 15:51:00 -
[341] - Quote
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Jack Lennox wrote:Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post. They can decide how good a deal it was. Well the problem is the CODE permit only works for CODE enforcement. If you don't have my permit I must gank you. My permits cost 2 billion for the first month and 1 billion renewal each month. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
17163
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 09:31:00 -
[342] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
825
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 15:41:00 -
[343] - Quote
Mag's wrote:MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate. If you mean retaliation against bumping no you don't. Bumpers are protected by CONCORD. Did you say suicide gank it? Have fun trying to gank a fleet stabber. It's not a Retriever moving at 100 m/s.
Or did you mean against the pilots of the damage dealing ships? When I come to your Retriever with my Thrasher you have no retaliation. You might get on the killmail but my ship was already going to be killed by CONCORD. Wait you have a kill right? You're a funny guy! That means nothing to my gank alt since she's - 10 and anyone can kill her anywhere.
No the only thing you can do is DIE! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 13:41:00 -
[344] - Quote
Lina Drasselbaff wrote:I have a question for all those saying that bumping should generate a suspect flag on the bumper.
Let's ignore the jita scenario and focus purely on the belts. So you're being bumped, and the bumper goes suspect. Now what?
If you aggress them with your drones, it creates a limited engagement and they can shoot back. So now that bumper can destroy you AND not get concorded, lose sec or have to wait out a gcc until they can do it again.
Obviously that won't happen (except perhaps for miners who go into a blind rage), so option 2 is you reship to your battleship and come attack. Fine, but I'm willing to bet most miners and their friends won't do that, because they might lose the fight. Besides, you can currently gank. Sure that's got penalties but you can always make a gank alt to mitigate..
So in short, this'll do almost nothing except make jita and amarr wreck central.
Perhaps instead of dreaming up these modules and mechanics that will generally aid the bumper much more than the miner, perhaps use some of the many many tools already available to you. Or.. just pay the 10 mil isk a year and keep an eye on local and then at least the new order won't bother you. I'm sorry to say both of these do require effort and staying at the keyboard.
If you don't wanna do that then I'm afraid you have to take the risks of what might happen. That's EVE. That's how those of us who don't mine have to play. If you don't like it that's perfectly okay (no flippancy there, EVE isn't for everyone and that's fine), there are a million other games out there you can play.
It would let freighter escorts have a shot at blapping the bumper.
That's about all I can think of.
I believe an idea to circumvent trade hub issues which has been previously suggested is that bumping does nothing unless the target is locked - therefore all PvP uses are safe, accidental conkordokken at hubs is also avoided. So long as people turn off auto target back, which is simple enough.
Wouldn't help miners a damn for reasons stated, but the wider aspects might be interesting - perhaps create some interesting opportunities of baiting etc. |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 23:43:00 -
[345] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Mag's wrote:MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate. If you mean retaliation against bumping no you don't. Bumpers are protected by CONCORD. Did you say suicide gank it? Have fun trying to gank a fleet stabber. It's not a Retriever moving at 100 m/s. You got that right. CODE's only attempt to gank my bumping stabber didnt really work out for them, and its not even a fleet issue.
|
Mr Welsh
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:29:00 -
[346] - Quote
make a siege module of mining where u are un bumpable but have to be not moving, and u can cancel the mining siege at any time, |
Cage Man
427
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 20:58:00 -
[347] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:
We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
How can you even state this ?? its a cop out.. CCP made the game the way it is and are continually trying to make it easier for this type of activity, ie bullying an extortion (the code). I have no issues with it being there, we choose to play or not to play, but seriously.. this statement is a cop out. Guess I can expect a ban, post removal or something for sharing my thoughts then ??
The thick plottens... CCP, When can my crane get its black paint job back?? |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
937
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 21:57:00 -
[348] - Quote
Cage Man wrote:GM Karidor wrote:
We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
How can you even state this ?? its a cop out.. CCP made the game the way it is and are continually trying to make it easier for this type of activity, ie bullying an extortion (the code). I have no issues with it being there, we choose to play or not to play, but seriously.. this statement is a cop out. Guess I can expect a ban, post removal or something for sharing my thoughts then ?? Way to go for resurrecting a dead thread but maybe it needed it.
Does this mean you can't talk about bumping in your bio? |
Soylent Jade
New Order Logistics CODE.
105
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 19:11:00 -
[349] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Way to go for resurrecting a dead thread but maybe it needed it.
Does this mean you can't talk about bumping in your bio?
No. A few people had said in their bio that bumping was endorsed by CCP, and were asked to remove that line, which is what they were addressing there. Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time
minerbumping.com |
Ji Hyu Song
Horlan Logistics and Support
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:56:00 -
[350] - Quote
Please look into the bumping of ships.
It doesn't make sense you can use a small ship to bump a bigger ship that are a few times bigger. It's more reasonable to able bump ships that are almost the same size. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19333
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 23:03:00 -
[351] - Quote
Ji Hyu Song wrote:Please look into the bumping of ships.
It doesn't make sense you can use a small ship to bump a bigger ship that are a few times bigger. It's more reasonable to able bump ships that are almost the same size. It doesn't make sense that spaceships in a spaceship game should behave like submarines, but they do.
Also elementary physics, energy transfer, conservation of momentum and Newtons 3rd law would like a word.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 23:26:00 -
[352] - Quote
Personally I'd like an answer better then move to another location please. Because in the case of ice this is something both CCP and the GM need to understand. There is not one usually within a reasonable distance.
You can't just jump one system over or change one belt. You have to make 5-7 jump trips, you have to move ships, you have to then haul longer distances. All because of what just happened to me and a corp mate. A character in a maller was ramming every barge in the belt making ice mining impossible, even if you tried to orbit and evade him, his actions were disruptive and made our undertaking playing the game as we desired impossible.
And we have zero recourse against this. He gets away scott free protected by CONCORD. And we are the ones forced to leave because his ship can't be attacked, evasion is a no go, we don't have someone to try and bump him back (which would be an exploit fighting an exploit) There's no point i nwar dec'ing or hiring mercs over a single bumper, and even then you could avoid that by being in an npc corp. All the while he gets off because of CCP's own stupid rule where harassment is only harassment if you are followed. There's no point in him following because he accomplished his goal of insuring people can't mine the ice. Why would he follow?
And then what if I moved the 5+ jumps to another ice belt and find a DIFFERENT pilot bumping there? Do I move back to the first ice system? Hope the bumper left and bumper #2 now doesn't follow a "Reasonable" (HA!) distance? Do I go even further still looking for every 4 hour spawns even more jumps from a base of operations? Maybe I could even find a third bumper if I'm lucky?
So if we can not within the rules of the game take action against someone who is quite obviously to everyone abusing EVE mechanics, is engaging in what for him is (And this is the point that can't be stressed enough given the mentality of EVE players telling people to HTFU and you are "never safe") --CONSEQUENCE FREE-- PVP activity. How is it not abuse of the rules, mechanics, and an exploit?
And when a player is intentionally disrupting other players actions by an activity that serves no benefit to himself, and meant purely to be disruptive? Please explain to me how in the world that is not the classic mmo definition (to everyone but CCP anyway) of griefing, and exploiting the rules of EVE to accomplish his actions?
CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such? |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
225
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 23:45:00 -
[353] - Quote
Whining on the forums is consequence free PVP on the meta level. Something needs to be done with this broken mechanic. Why doesn't CONCORD do something about this? And where are the faction grammar police at when there is obviously so much need for them in enforcing the proper use of words like 'harassment, griefing, defenseless, and helpless'?
Btw, if you check the wikipedia article on griefer... and read all the way to the bottom, you'll find this little gem...
'Eve Online has incorporated activities typically considered griefing as part of the gameplay mechanism. Corporate spying, theft, scams, gate-camping, and PVP on non-PVP players are all part of their gaming experience.'
If the devs and gm's really had a problem with this mechanic and how it's being used they would have done something about it years ago. Use the tools you have available to you, they are the same as everyone else has. Just please stop asking for all the corners and sharp edges in the universe to be padded with foam. |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 00:29:00 -
[354] - Quote
And look, bumping isn't on that list. Wonder why?
But please educate me, tell this poor widdle carebear (dripping sarcasm) what tools I have to escape, avoid, or deal with a bumper in an ice belt besides leave, counter bump, or try to war dec an npc corp member?
The whole the devs would have dealt with it years ago defense is an empty argument too. Given the evolving nature of any MMO. It's about on par with complaining about grammar instead of actually addressing the problem.
Could it be because you don't have an actual argument to the point being raised Omar? Come on let's see those tools!
And again even if I did use this magical advice you have but can't give specifics on, you still have the issue of should I use those tools how do we address moving from one bumper and encountering a second?
Your thoughts? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19390
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 01:21:00 -
[355] - Quote
Dragnkat wrote:CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such?
Because they don't consider it to be an exploit or harassment At the end of the day it's CCP's game and as such their word on the matter is the only one that matters.
Depending on who's doing the bumping you could try and come to a financial or other arrangement with them to leave you alone, it's extortion, and you're allowed to run an extortion racket in Eve.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 02:14:00 -
[356] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dragnkat wrote:CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such?
Because they don't consider it to be an exploit or harassment At the end of the day it's CCP's game and as such their word on the matter is the only one that matters. Depending on who's doing the bumping you could try and come to a financial or other arrangement with them to leave you alone, it's extortion, and you're allowed to run an extortion racket in Eve.
And if I pay him or not it doesn't change the fact that unlike other anti miner measures. (Suicide ganks for instance) there is still
* No consequences to the bumper for his actions. * No ability by miners to exact retribution upon the bumper. All loss is on them without any counter.
Granted in the case of bumping you lose time moving back, or time finding a new location over a barge. But compare again to a gank.
* Consequence for ganker in the form of criminal flag, loss of sec status, and loss of cheap cata fit. (Granted all of these are minor, but they are actual consequence) * Miner has retribution options in the form of kill rights now. Or actual defense counters in the form of various tanking options, spider webbed repper drones with friends, paying CODE pre gank, avoiding known gank zones, combat escorts, logi ship, suicide gank counters in the most extreme cases, etc.
Again if you want to talk about makes eve appealing (to me as well) It's the risk vs reward factor and how actions have consequences. None of which applies to bumpers, it's a 100% risk free behavior that accomplishes the same goal of miner disruption that a gank would. But again unlike ganks zero consequence zero counter within the system and the rules. Even less of one if again you're dealing with an npc corp bumper you can't war dec or sic mercs on. So even if we concede the point that the devs don't consider it an exploit (though imho it fits the definition perfectly) How does it fit into the ethos so to speak of the eve universe?
For all the ragging high sec "carebears" get this would seem to be another version of that as well, given that bumpers are hiding behind the high sec rules and CONCORD even more than those in the barges. =p
And I'll ask you as well, if you are dealing with a fixed location such as an ice belt where movement to a new system is not an option, how does the CCP stance of harassment = being followed apply across multiple ice spawns then? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19395
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:02:00 -
[357] - Quote
Dragnkat wrote:* No consequences to the bumper for his actions. * No ability by miners to exact retribution upon the bumper.
- His actions aren't considered a crime by Concord or CCP, why would there be consequences?
- Yes there is, you can gank the bumper. To make his life hard you can use an orbiting AB equipped Skiff to avoid being bumped (extremely hard to bump), you can snuggle up close to the material you're mining and sit in a place that makes bumping both hard and pointless because the bounding spheres of the icicles/'roids don't let him get close enough at a speed fast enough to have an effect. If you're running a corp mining op, try using webs on each other to minimise the velocity changes caused by bumping.
Quote:So even if we concede the point that the devs don't consider it an exploit (though imho it fits the definition perfectly) How does it fit into the ethos so to speak of the eve universe? It may fit the general definition of griefing, but as previously stated an awful lot of things that are considered griefing elsewhere are legitimate gameplay options here. It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count.
Quote:For all the ragging high sec "carebears" get this would seem to be another version of that as well, given that bumpers are hiding behind the high sec rules and CONCORD even more than those in the barges. =p What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote:And I'll ask you as well, if you are dealing with a fixed location such as an ice belt where movement to a new system is not an option, how does the CCP stance of harassment = being followed apply across multiple ice spawns then? The only people that can say for sure are CCP, if you want a definitive answer raise a support ticket.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Revis Owen
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:54:00 -
[358] - Quote
Hmmmm . . . how should miners deal with bumping and any other security issues in the belts, I ponder.
Please hold on to the arms of your chairs, because I'm about to add to the proposals a very revolutionary and innovative idea:
Talk to and play with others also interested in securing belts for peaceful mining.
I know this will shock some who thought the "MM" part of MMO meant "Mono-play Mining". Clue: it doesn't.
But actually, when you look it up, the "MM" part, especially with EVE, means that there are a whole lot of people with whom you can creatively come up with the solution to your security. Isn't that a whole lot more fun and creative than turning EVE into Hello Kitty with space-ships? I think so.
In order to get into the fun and creativity of beating your opponents and providing your own security you'll have to actually, like, talk to and play with other people.
Welcome to the MMO, welcome to the sandbox. WoW and Hello Kitty ------------------> Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:26:00 -
[359] - Quote
" It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count. " So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
|
Revis Owen
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 16:42:00 -
[360] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:" It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count. " So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
I know, right? Traders who manipulate the market are bullies! Miners who mine 24/7 and lower ore prices from dumping all that ore on the market are bullies! But I'm not complaining that they're bullying. I'm looking for a creative way to bully them right back (within allowed game mechanics and EULA, of course).
Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |