| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
2
   |
Posted - 2011.10.26 23:57:00 -
[91] - Quote
This is so obvious that it will sound stupid (but id rather state the obvious than deal with a bugged implementation for years):
When you are cloaked, the local list will be empty regardless. You won't see other cloaked people in local.
That is, implementation-wise, it is not like having two local lists, one for cloaked players, one for non-cloaked.
I fully sopport the OP.
:sand: -áover -á:awesome: |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
461
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 21:03:00 -
[92] - Quote
A thread with a title this cool needs a bump.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
156
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 23:35:00 -
[93] - Quote
What about cyno acnors at the POS? Should they be instant or spooled up as well? |
Svenjabi Xiang
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 21:29:00 -
[94] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:What about cyno acnors at the POS? Should they be instant or spooled up as well?
If you're meaning the POS module, I've never found the "Cloak" switch control for one of those.  |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
166
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:19:00 -
[95] - Quote
Svenjabi Xiang wrote:Nova Fox wrote:What about cyno acnors at the POS? Should they be instant or spooled up as well? If you're meaning the POS module, I've never found the "Cloak" switch control for one of those.
Well theres talk about causing all cynos to be spun up instead of just covert ships.
There no cloaking but there was a stealthing field. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 14:44:00 -
[96] - Quote
free bump to keep it at the attention of CCP.
You owe me a cookie. |
iwasatoad
The Lost Disciple's
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 15:41:00 -
[97] - Quote
like the idea in fact should of been how it was off the bat and i agree bomber's = 42 sec delay in cyno tatic drop BM by guy's in anom ideal one's that are moving slow or not moving warp out to some where time it start warp back decloke in warp ..
ding ding ding local bell goes off who is this bomber come's on grid not out of warp im going to gtfo guy B caught in franic bomber lands locks points while lighting covert cyno or banish bomber from covert cyno leave it to the scanny frig's and recon's....
covert recon suffer the same sensor recal time of 5 sec hummm decloke on grid lock point cyno u never new was comming um.......
i think well planned 42 sec or may be ok 30 would be ok but if thus is allowed i would say there not able to fit covert op's cloking device and regular cyno at same time or just not able to fit regular cyno thus no hot dropping super cap fleet on a solo ship that would have no chance of alline or killing do to prolonged lock.
but would make recon's and stealth t-3's and such a real point as now ya you can hot drop some one but it's there owne stupid falt for not safing up with red in system lol...
im with it but 30 sec delay from decloke to covert cyno being lit and if there must be regular cyno capible then fine 1 min delay on it lighting from decloke
and on that note
ill give this a
+1 for would bring a good thing to eve |
Ancy Denaries
Mind Games.
0ccupational Hazzard
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 18:52:00 -
[98] - Quote
This is so awesome it literally caused brain pains of awesome overload. I support this very heavily. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
68
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 19:14:00 -
[99] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote:Yes and what about the timing on gates would you agree you didn't knwo the mchaics there? And what about just warping off after you have been tackled would you agree that might be a bit more tricky than you suggested at first.
I really didn't think the fact that you misunderstood how eve pvp mechanics work would have any effect on your conclusions that your proposal is wonderful.
Yes there will be more small scale ganks. That is there will be more solo and small scale pvpers ganked by blobs. That will lead to fewer solo and small scale pvpers.
You claim that it would be too much trouble to fit a cloak to your ship and sit in a blob. Its not more difficult to fit a cloak than than any other module just right click and select fit to active ship or drag and drop it on. By not letting other people know there is a blob in local more people will feed the blobs.
You don't think this will negatively effect small scale pvp because you do not do or understand how small scale pvp is done. But if you want eve pvp to become stupidly blobby this is a step in the right direction.
This proposal has the same problems that have been raised over and over every time a nerf/remove local proposal is raised. I think that what's interesting is that you're the only one addressing these concerns so far. Now, that doesn't invalidate them, and if concerns are there they definitely need to be addressed, but so far it's seeming a vastly minority opinion which really makes me hesitate to think there are any significant changes needed to the proposal.
You have bumped this thread and spammed links to it in several other threads. It has over 1381 views. Only 44 people like the op. I don't know I would consider that a wonderful success.
Nevertheless, there *are* people who will like this proposal. People who like to fly in blobs and gank people and people who like to gank pvers and industrial ships. There *are* allot of people who fit in these categories in eve. I donGÇÖt think eve needs to boost blobbing, but allot of eve players like to blob so they will likely support your idea.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what I have described is very clear that this will just give a boost to blobs. Your failure to understand that is simply due to your severe lack of understanding of the mechanics in pvp.
Moreover you seem to have allot of support from people who, like yourself don't pvp at all and just think it "sounds cool." Just look at the killboards of many of the people saying they like the idea.
The title of the thread itself is really something most pvpers don't care about. AFK cloaking isn't of interest to them.
Moreover, many pvpers have addressed the issue of nerfing local in other threads. The main problem is blobs will then cloak up and kill off small scale and solo pvp. Surely you remember those threads from the old boards. You were spamming this idea in them too. The same problems that many people posted in those threads apply here. IGÇÖm not surprised they are not posting the same problems again and again.
Ingvar Angst wrote:
But... let's see if we can get me to figure out what you're talking about. So, you enter a system in null, uncloaked assumingly, and show up in local, seeing someone else in local, right? You find them, start attacking and a blob or the like decloaks, because they all modified their fits to have a cloak. So, during the 12 second recalibration, you warp to the gateGǪGǪ
?
Woah what do you mean I warp to a gate??? Bait ships have warp scramblers or disruptors. These are modules you can fit in a midslot that will keep a ship from warping away. IGÇÖm really not sure how little you understand about pvp in this game. But typically if you want to attack someone in pvp you will fit one of these modules. If you are in range to apply it to the person you are attacking they are in range to apply it to you. Bait ships will have them and a web or two plus allot of tank. They wonGÇÖt have much gank because they will just have the blob kill you.
As far as modifying your fit to fit a cloakGǪ.I suppose you donGÇÖt realize fitting a cloak is not that hard for a ship that is going to sit in a blob anyway. High slots can even sometimes be left open to allow you to overheat your guns a bit longer. Fitting a cloak is not a big deal for a blob ship.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.31 19:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
i really don't see a problem with this anyways, if there is a neut, send them a fleet invite, if they accept or decline it, you knwo they are active and not in a fleet, if a message pops up saying in fleet, assume they are there, and if it times out, they are probably AFK (i was gonna use smart, but smart would be a fleet by themselves) |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
185
|
Posted - 2011.10.31 19:34:00 -
[101] - Quote
Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
70
|
Posted - 2011.10.31 21:53:00 -
[102] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point.
The proposal makes the problems worse.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 04:54:00 -
[103] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point. The proposal makes the problems worse.
...How? Only players make the problem worse. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
492
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 12:04:00 -
[104] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point. The proposal makes the problems worse.
What's curious is that you seem to be the only one that thinks so.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
70
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 14:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point. The proposal makes the problems worse. What's curious is that you seem to be the only one that thinks so.
Again you forget all the other people who posted the same problems in other "nerf local" threads you posted this idea in. I think people just get tired of arguing about how this will effect small scale pvp in eve, with people who don't even understand the basic mechanics of it.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bender 01000010
EVE-RO
Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 10:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
nice idea |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
237
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:00:00 -
[107] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Only negative comments Ive seen have been over stipulating the same issues that are current issues. I dont see the point. The proposal makes the problems worse. What's curious is that you seem to be the only one that thinks so. Again you forget all the other people who posted the same problems in other "nerf local" threads you posted this idea in. I think people just get tired of arguing about how this will effect small scale pvp in eve, with people who don't even understand the basic mechanics of it.
Well luckily cloakerships are thinly skinned.
|
Lessa Tar
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:06:00 -
[108] - Quote
Wow... so I didn't read the entire thread but this seems like a pretty involved solution for a simple problem.
Why not just introduce another mostly defenseless 'specialty' ship (such as the Echelon) that has one high slot that can fit a special module that can scan down cloakies? That puts the power to deal with afk cloakies in the hands of the players in those systems without mucking too much with the current game mechanics.
If the cloaky isn't afk then they can clearly see it coming on d-scan as the defenseless ship in question couldn't fit both the specialty probe launcher and a cloak. Cloaking and sitting becomes a bit less safe but not necessarily impossible.
Problem solved. Go on about your business. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
529
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:14:00 -
[109] - Quote
Lessa Tar wrote:Wow... so I didn't read the entire thread but this seems like a pretty involved solution for a simple problem.
Why not just introduce another mostly defenseless 'specialty' ship (such as the Echelon) that has one high slot that can fit a special module that can scan down cloakies? That puts the power to deal with afk cloakies in the hands of the players in those systems without mucking too much with the current game mechanics.
If the cloaky isn't afk then they can clearly see it coming on d-scan as the defenseless ship in question couldn't fit both the specialty probe launcher and a cloak. Cloaking and sitting becomes a bit less safe but not necessarily impossible.
Problem solved. Go on about your business.
Because the ability to scan down cloaked ships would change this "specialty" ship into a required ship, and as a result many aspects of the game would break, including wormhole intelligence gathering. Cloaked ships aren't the problem. Knowing they're there when you shouldn't is.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lessa Tar
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:47:00 -
[110] - Quote
How does it change wormhole intelligence gathering? If a ship is cloaked in a wormhole you don't see them on d-scan or in local so you have no idea they're there much less that you should try scanning for them.
Make scanning cloaked ships non-trivial (such as scanning down a really tough anomaly) and you wind up with a ship that sits with it's ass in the wind trying to scan down a cloaked ship that, if it's actually moving, makes it nearly impossible. Meanwhile the cloaked ship could easily find the scanning vessel and eliminate it (read the part about defenseless).
This doesn't make that ship "required" and if properly implemented, only makes sitting idle in a system cloaked for hours on end less appealing. Why should "intelligence gathering" be safer than anything else in EVE? In my opinion, every advantage should have a foil and cloaking is no different. As far as my solution, it still makes moving around cloaked a safe option. It just makes sitting cloaked afk less so. |
Lessa Tar
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:49:00 -
[111] - Quote
And if you're going to throw out a "many aspects of the game" line, list them. Otherwise that's way too ambiguous a statement to bother considering. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
529
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:09:00 -
[112] - Quote
Lessa Tar wrote:How does it change wormhole intelligence gathering? If a ship is cloaked in a wormhole you don't see them on d-scan or in local so you have no idea they're there much less that you should try scanning for them.
Make scanning cloaked ships non-trivial (such as scanning down a really tough anomaly) and you wind up with a ship that sits with it's ass in the wind trying to scan down a cloaked ship that, if it's actually moving, makes it nearly impossible. Meanwhile the cloaked ship could easily find the scanning vessel and eliminate it (read the part about defenseless).
This doesn't make that ship "required" and if properly implemented, only makes sitting idle in a system cloaked for hours on end less appealing. Why should "intelligence gathering" be safer than anything else in EVE? In my opinion, every advantage should have a foil and cloaking is no different. As far as my solution, it still makes moving around cloaked a safe option. It just makes sitting cloaked afk less so.
You haven't really thought this through, have you? Wormhole intelligence gathering pretty well requires days, often weeks of simply being cloaked up in the target hole watching what's going on... gathering pilot information, habits, schedules, etc. With what you're proposing, what's the first thing anyone would do when logging in... not only scan for vessels and anoms, but scan for the presence of cloaked ships. You don't even have to scan them down, just know they're there. That's enough blown intel to completely change someone's habits... they stay pos'd up, or run their goodies out of the hole while you're incapable of stopping them, etc. If all I had to do was scan and see someone was cloaked in my hole, that's a game changer. If they're there for more than a day or two, that's a change of habits... run out the loot, fire up all the defenses, call in the troops. It breaks the system.
Knowledge of the presence of a cloaked vessel needs to be earned through either a mistake on the part of the cloaked or fortunate observation by the searching. It should never be as simple as launching probes or even looking at local.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lessa Tar
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 16:30:00 -
[113] - Quote
I think, in your defense of intelligence gathering, you're not considering the consequences of the parent proposal.
If you're actively 'intelligence gathering" you should know when ships appear and become active and you should be moving around constantly to avoid getting caught while doing so. Gathering intelligence is no excuse for being able to safely sit idle in systems for days on end.
Will that change the way you have to go about gathering intelligence? Sure. But again, why should gathering intelligence be an excuse for remaining completely safe?
And if that's so important, why not make the specialty ship dual purpose. One high slot to fit either a covert cloak (with which it can't be scanned down under any circumstances) or a probe launcher to find other, less harmless cloakies? Now you have the option to either find a cloaked ship or be an undetectable one, but you can't fit a cyno or weapons making it useless for anything other than those two activities and far less dangerous. In that instance you can perform your intelligence gathering safely without being an actual threat to locals. However their activity is still disrupted (part of the 'fun' of being a cloaky twit I suppose) as they try safe up while they try to scan down your undetectable ship, not returning to their activity until they're satisfied you're effectively harmless other than watching.
By the proposed solution (removing any indication of a cloaked ship) a miner in null could conceivably have an entire fleet of stealth bombers gathered around waiting to decloak and blow them to bits. An orca in a belt would go from difficult to save to impossible to save. Ratter/Plexers would face similar problems in that, all the cloaked fleet would have to do is wait for some nice rat to warp scram them, decloak, and have at it.
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
529
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:08:00 -
[114] - Quote
You've missed the point. Simply being able to drop probes and detect the presence of a cloaked vessel breaks the current system, and there's no good reason for doing so. You mentioned the miner having a swarm of covops cloaked around him... well, same risk is in wormholes and we live with it... you're talking null or low sec, places that are supposed to be inherently dangerous. You're SUPPOSED to be able to be snuck up on by someone covertly. You're also expected to take the proper precautions for that. Maybe you have friends with you. Maybe you have someone watching the gates, maybe you're watching local anyhow and see someone show up briefly in local as they log in or jump through a gate.
You want to make null/low/wh easier than it already is. That's not a good thing.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Because the ability to scan down cloaked ships would change this "specialty" ship into a required ship, and as a result many aspects of the game would break, including wormhole intelligence gathering. Cloaked ships aren't the problem. Knowing they're there when you shouldn't is.
Actually there is no problem at all with the current cloaking system. Your proposal just makes problems worse for other aspects of the game. As has been explained over and over to you in painful detail this will just be a tool to blob people.
You have no valid response to those detailed posts you just keep bumping this bad idea so others like yourself who know nothing about small scale pvp can say "sounds cool."
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
529
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:
Because the ability to scan down cloaked ships would change this "specialty" ship into a required ship, and as a result many aspects of the game would break, including wormhole intelligence gathering. Cloaked ships aren't the problem. Knowing they're there when you shouldn't is.
Actually there is no problem at all with the current cloaking system. Your proposal just makes problems worse for other aspects of the game. As has been explained over and over to you in painful detail this will just be a tool to blob people. You have no valid response to those detailed posts you just keep bumping this bad idea so others like yourself who know nothing about small scale pvp can say "sounds cool."
You keep referring to these posts, yet fail to actually point them out to me. The only possible ships that could actually "blob" with this style of system would be covops, and you'd see a blob enter the gate as they flash in local before they cloak.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:48:00 -
[117] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Cearain wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:
Because the ability to scan down cloaked ships would change this "specialty" ship into a required ship, and as a result many aspects of the game would break, including wormhole intelligence gathering. Cloaked ships aren't the problem. Knowing they're there when you shouldn't is.
Actually there is no problem at all with the current cloaking system. Your proposal just makes problems worse for other aspects of the game. As has been explained over and over to you in painful detail this will just be a tool to blob people. You have no valid response to those detailed posts you just keep bumping this bad idea so others like yourself who know nothing about small scale pvp can say "sounds cool." You keep referring to these posts, yet fail to actually point them out to me. The only possible ships that could actually "blob" with this style of system would be covops, and you'd see a blob enter the gate as they flash in local before they cloak.
Wow you forgot about it already? Its one page back. Here is one of many posts that take you through the basic mechanics of pvp in eve:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=258532#post258532
Why do you assume the blob would move? Any ship that can fit a cloak could just sit on a gate and blob any small gang that takes their bait. Eve pvp will become even worse than it already is.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lessa Tar
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:50:00 -
[118] - Quote
Quote:
You keep referring to these posts, yet fail to actually point them out to me. The only possible ships that could actually "blob" with this style of system would be covops, and you'd see a blob enter the gate as they flash in local before they cloak.
On the one hand you assume everyone who lives in wormhole space is alert and attentive and would never overlook a cloaked ship in their system, but that every blob is completely incompetent and wouldn't trickle into a system over a period of time or simply scout out a relatively busy system (for days on end as your intelligence gathering requires) and jump in when the system was empty, and wait for dinner to arrive.
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
529
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:15:00 -
[119] - Quote
Lessa Tar wrote:Quote:
You keep referring to these posts, yet fail to actually point them out to me. The only possible ships that could actually "blob" with this style of system would be covops, and you'd see a blob enter the gate as they flash in local before they cloak.
On the one hand you assume everyone who lives in wormhole space is alert and attentive and would never overlook a cloaked ship in their system, but that every blob is completely incompetent and wouldn't trickle into a system over a period of time or simply scout out a relatively busy system (for days on end as your intelligence gathering requires) and jump in when the system was empty, and wait for dinner to arrive.
On the one hand, anyone who lives in wormhole space that isn't alert and attentive isn't in wormhole space for long. Now... overlooking a cloaked ship... what? It's cloaked, you can't see it. It's not there as far as all your instruments can tell you.
On the blobby hand... you mean... actually earn their PvP? If a competent group is willing to take a couple days to trickle into a system and cloak up waiting for that solo miners to come nibble rocks in null sec... well, that's a not-very-time/cost-efficient yet well-earned kill.
It's funny you mention this though... a lot of wormhole assaults work like that... you find holes into the system and maybe get a group in there unseen... if it's not enough then as more come on you get them in... hell, there was a C5 assault I had the honor of helping repel where the invading forces spent weeks trickling in and setting up. What a couple days that was... Caerain, you'd have been proud of the PvP then. It's funny how something like the current local would have ruined some pretty epic battles. It's also funny how something like being able to probe out cloaked vessels would also have ruined it. But I digress.  You're right on the second point about people putting the effort into PvP being able to set things up to possibly get successful kills. But notice, if you will, they're working for it and earning it. They're adding a layer of danger to null sec that should be there. All it takes is one screw up when someone is watching to blow the whole operation... someone catches a name while they flash in local and keeps tabs on them... logged on/off, locator agents maybe, things of that nature. PvP can be had, and it needs to be earned. It's my opinion that local prevents a lot of that by constantly giving away the presence of all who are in system... hence the threads about afk cloaking (that this thread originally was meant to address).
And Caerain... all you're offering are assertions that blobs will benefit, yet others offer differing points of view. Because you assert it it doesn't take on the status of factual... nor do my claims. However there are some obvious things I personally think would be beneficial to this type of system...
1. Cloaks get to act like real cloaks. They not only cut off you from everyone else, but they cut you off from everyone else. Intel becomes an active endeavour... it's not simply sitting while cloaked and watching local. You would need to actively search things out... sit off gates, belts, stations, pos', etc. and observe.
2. Instead of cloaks getting nerfed, and by default wormholes and any other aspect of the game where invisibility is beneficial, "danger" gets a buff. Nerfing cloaks in any form softens all aspects of Eve, excepting maybe high sec. Null becomes easier and safer. Wormholes, low sec, the same. You take away the danger of the enemy unseen. You make it more carebear. Instead, this offers to keep the danger element while balancing the possible excessive use of cynos, and at the same time it makes the cloaked vessel a more interactive ship. Parking at a safe in the middle of nowhere becomes ineffective completely... you need to plan your intel and actually go where you need to see, probe what you need to find.
I agree with a statement Caerain made... cloaks are indeed fine and the system really doesn't need to change much if at all... however when thinking of what people are perceiving as an "afk cloaker" problem and some of the drastic effects their solutions would have on other aspects of the game... if something actually needs to be done, this to me seems like the best option.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
2026
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:I agree with a statement Caerain made... cloaks are indeed fine and the system really doesn't need to change much if at all... however when thinking of what people are perceiving as an "afk cloaker" problem and some of the drastic effects their solutions would have on other aspects of the game... if something actually needs to be done, this to me seems like the best option. Agreed.
But as yet we don't know what CCP is planning for local, so........
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |