| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
781

|
Posted - 2014.01.18 18:55:00 -
[301] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The rules: 6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.
Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.
21. Posting regarding RMT (Real Money Trading) is prohibited.
Posts discussing, linking to, or advertising RMT, including but not limited to the sale of in game items, assets, currency, characters or game accounts for real life money are strictly prohibited. ISD Ezwal Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:08:00 -
[302] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:once you've fit ice harvesting modules to a hulk, for example, you have less than 60 cpu remaining, and less than 12pg remaining. consider that a t2 invuln requires 44 cpu. even a meta invuln requires 34, which is over half of the available cpu. Then don't fit the ice harvester upgrades. You now have sufficient GP/CPU and two extra low slots to contribute to the tank. TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Dave Stark
4238
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:15:00 -
[303] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:once you've fit ice harvesting modules to a hulk, for example, you have less than 60 cpu remaining, and less than 12pg remaining. consider that a t2 invuln requires 44 cpu. even a meta invuln requires 34, which is over half of the available cpu. Then don't fit the ice harvester upgrades. You now have sufficient GP/CPU and two extra low slots to contribute to the tank.
so now i have empty low slots instead of empty mid slots. how does that resolve the issue that the ship simply doesn't have enough cpu/pg to fill the slots?
oh right, it doesn't. |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:17:00 -
[304] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:once you've fit ice harvesting modules to a hulk, for example, you have less than 60 cpu remaining, and less than 12pg remaining. consider that a t2 invuln requires 44 cpu. even a meta invuln requires 34, which is over half of the available cpu. Then don't fit the ice harvester upgrades. You now have sufficient GP/CPU and two extra low slots to contribute to the tank. so now i have empty low slots instead of empty mid slots. how does that resolve the issue that the ship simply doesn't have enough cpu/pg to fill the slots? oh right, it doesn't. Hulk fit Damage Control II Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I
Small Shield Extender II Small Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
You were saying?
Don't scoff at the smalls, they add 3kEHP against hybrid. TL;DR: Don't reply. |

RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:19:00 -
[305] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:once you've fit ice harvesting modules to a hulk, for example, you have less than 60 cpu remaining, and less than 12pg remaining. consider that a t2 invuln requires 44 cpu. even a meta invuln requires 34, which is over half of the available cpu. Then don't fit the ice harvester upgrades. You now have sufficient GP/CPU and two extra low slots to contribute to the tank. so now i have empty low slots instead of empty mid slots. how does that resolve the issue that the ship simply doesn't have enough cpu/pg to fill the slots? oh right, it doesn't. Hulk fitDamage Control II Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I Small Shield Extender II Small Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I You were saying? Don't scoff at the smalls, they add 3kEHP against hybrid.
Got one for null retreiver? |

Dave Stark
4239
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:21:00 -
[306] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:once you've fit ice harvesting modules to a hulk, for example, you have less than 60 cpu remaining, and less than 12pg remaining. consider that a t2 invuln requires 44 cpu. even a meta invuln requires 34, which is over half of the available cpu. Then don't fit the ice harvester upgrades. You now have sufficient GP/CPU and two extra low slots to contribute to the tank. so now i have empty low slots instead of empty mid slots. how does that resolve the issue that the ship simply doesn't have enough cpu/pg to fill the slots? oh right, it doesn't. Hulk fitDamage Control II Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I Small Shield Extender II Small Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I You were saying? Don't scoff at the smalls, they add 3kEHP against hybrid.
like i said, it doesn't have the cpu/pg to fill the mid slots. as demonstrated by the fitting mod on your fit. and i will scoff at the smalls; it's a cruiser sized ship it should be using cruiser sized modules, that would mean mediums not smalls.
also, does that fit work with ice harvesters? more curiosity than anything since i've already proven my point, and you couldn't make it work either. |

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
881
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:30:00 -
[307] - Quote
flakeys wrote:That's the wiz .. Unfortunately, the Disco Fleet that was stalking him has largely fallen apart. If any one wishes to join the cause...
Once, just once, I want to get in amonst that fleet with a handful of discophoons... |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:34:00 -
[308] - Quote
RAIN Arthie wrote:[Got one for null retreiver? Only reason I'd be inclined to do that is if I were confident I could tank the rats. Is that possible on a ret?
Dave Stark wrote:like i said, it doesn't have the cpu/pg to fill the mid slots. as demonstrated by the fitting mod on your fit. and i will scoff at the smalls; it's a cruiser sized ship it should be using cruiser sized modules, that would mean mediums not smalls. My Nereus can fit large shield extenders, should I complain to CCP that it should be restricted to mediums? It can fit large tank modules because the ship is designed specifically for large tanks.
The hulk is a yield oriented ship, hence why it sucks at fitting tank. If tank is what you're looking for, use a skiff or a procurer.
Quote:also, does that fit work with ice harvesters? Yes. TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Dave Stark
4239
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:35:00 -
[309] - Quote
one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have a flaw. |

Dave Stark
4239
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:41:00 -
[310] - Quote
RAIN Arthie wrote:Dave Stark wrote:one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have a flaw. Dave, you need to smile more. 
are you on drugs? |

Dave Stark
4239
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:42:00 -
[311] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have such glaring a flaw. OK. I'll complain about the Nereus's mining yield. After all, the hulk's strength in yield isn't justification for the Nereys's glaring flaw, right?
no because the nereus isn't a mining ship.
if you're resorting to nonsense because you haven't got a legitimate point, stop posting. it's less embarrassing for both of us. |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:47:00 -
[312] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:no because the nereus isn't a mining ship. Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship. TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Dave Stark
4240
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:51:00 -
[313] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:no because the nereus isn't a mining ship. Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship.
no ship is a tanking ship. |

Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
131
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:58:00 -
[314] - Quote
Kate stark wrote:Louise Beethoven wrote:These no life losers ruin the game for everyone remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing? oh wait, it isn't.
1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing.
Allow me to count the ways....
1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference. 2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth. 3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"? 4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all). 5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online".
Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W. MCRMI Now Recruiting for Minmatar FW and General Merc Work |

Dave Stark
4241
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:59:00 -
[315] - Quote
Alaekessa wrote:Kate stark wrote:Louise Beethoven wrote:These no life losers ruin the game for everyone remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing? oh wait, it isn't. 1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing. Allow me to count the ways.... 1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference. 2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth. 3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"? 4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all). 5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online". Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.
yeah so as we'd already established there are no differences and it doesn't matter who is controlling the accounts. welcome to about 3 pages ago? |

La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:00:00 -
[316] - Quote
Alaekessa wrote:Kate stark wrote:Louise Beethoven wrote:These no life losers ruin the game for everyone remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing? oh wait, it isn't. 1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing. Allow me to count the ways.... 1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference. 2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth. 3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all). 5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online". Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W.
Highsec happened, you all whined for it don't you appreciate it now :smug:?
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |

Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
131
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:01:00 -
[317] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Alaekessa wrote:Kate stark wrote:Louise Beethoven wrote:These no life losers ruin the game for everyone remind me again how this is any different to 97 players doing the exact same thing? oh wait, it isn't. 1 guy sitting in his skidmarked underwear in his mom's basement, using a third party program to log in his 97 accounts and then undock his 97 accounts to go drain an entire belt in record time is exceedingly different from 97 players doing the same thing. Allow me to count the ways.... 1) No herding cats. This alone could be argued to be more than enough difference. 2) When 97 guys all get together to drain belts in record time, they're going to each want to get some compensation. When 1 guy multiboxes 97 accounts, it is very likely that 96 of those accounts aren't getting a goddamn penny. Therefore, there is no distribution of wealth. 3) The "emergent gameplay" of awoxing? The risk of that occurring is significantly reduced, yet the payout is disproportionately high. What ever happened to "No Risk. No Isk"?4) 97 guys will not all be cycling at the exact same time, there will be some variation to it. Someone might need to go AFK for what they assume will be 45 seconds which turns into 45 minutes, this impacts the yield of the fleet (albeit in a minor way, though potentially moreso depending on how attentive you can keep them all). 5) MMO means "Massively MULTIPLAYER Online" not "Massively MULTIACCOUNT Online". Where are the guys who used to rail against lone high-sec miners saying that they're "not playing the game as intended, it is a MMO, not an Online Singleplayer game and that is why it is ok for me to gank them, to force them to interact with other players in the MMO". Multiboxing totally turns that on its head. Why should I bother interacting with anyone else if I can muster my own 100 man fleet and go do whatever the hell I damn well please? It removes the social aspect of the game. Throw the adages "Friends are OP" and "Teamwork is OP" right out the ******* window and just accept that multiboxing is a whitewash facade for covering that Eve has become P2W. Highsec happened, you all whined for it don't you appreciate it now :smug:? Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that. MCRMI Now Recruiting for Minmatar FW and General Merc Work |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:02:00 -
[318] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:no because the nereus isn't a mining ship. Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship. no ship is a tanking ship. Aye. The hulk's weakness is it's weak tank.
So I'm guessing you think that the hulk should lose a couple of mids in light of the fact it wouldn't be able to fit medium size shield mods without sacrificing some harvesters? TL;DR: Don't reply. |

La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:04:00 -
[319] - Quote
Alaekessa wrote:Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that.
I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |

Dave Stark
4243
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:07:00 -
[320] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:no because the nereus isn't a mining ship. Just as the hulk isn't a tanking ship. no ship is a tanking ship. Aye. The hulk's weakness is it's weak tank. So I'm guessing you think that the hulk should lose a couple of mids in light of the fact it wouldn't be able to fit medium size shield mods without sacrificing some harvesters?
there's a difference between the hulk having a "weak tank" which it is obviously meant to have, and the simple fact that it doesn't have the cpu/pg to fit a tank once mining modules have been fitted.
no, losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it. |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:23:00 -
[321] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it. Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf. TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
131
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:24:00 -
[322] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Alaekessa wrote:Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that. I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:. I'll let you tell me what to campaign for once you start admitting that there is a difference between 97 guys in a fleet and 1 guy controlling a 97 account fleet, until then you're just another one of the only ~300 goons that each multibox ~40 accounts to boost your numbers.
Yes, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that there really isn't ~12k goons but that there are only really about 300 neckbeards each multiboxing ~40 accounts. Might explain why you defend multiboxing as you do.
#tinfoilorisit? MCRMI Now Recruiting for Minmatar FW and General Merc Work |

Dave Stark
4244
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:27:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it. Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf.
*shrug* i leave the balance and numbers up to CCP. however having a ship that simply can't fill all of it's slots is pretty dumb.
as i pointed out, once i've put mag stabs on my vindi, that can still fit a more than sufficient tank. There's no reason why a hulk shouldn't be able to do the same, even if i have to downgrade to meta modules. fitting implants etc are an acceptable price to pay to upgrade that to t2.
i don't expect to have max tank and yield, but on the other hand fitting for max yield shouldn't stop me filling my mid slots with useful modules. (again, even if they have to be meta 4 to fit.) |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:35:00 -
[324] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:losing the mids is the exact reverse of the original point. if anything it should lose base ehp in favour of fitting so people can either fit it with a level of tank to suit them, or not. as the case goes you either use ALL of the slots for tank or you simply can't fit a tank to it. Actually, a mid-slot removal may well be necessary. Combined with a PG increase of ~8-10, you could fit a med shield extender, along with the rest of the tank. Even without a 4th mid slot however, you could still fit 4kEHP more than now. The compensation would come from your suggested native tank nerf. *shrug* i leave the balance and numbers up to CCP. however having a ship that simply can't fill all of it's slots is pretty dumb. as i pointed out, once i've put mag stabs on my vindi, that can still fit a more than sufficient tank. There's no reason why a hulk shouldn't be able to do the same, even if i have to downgrade to meta modules. fitting implants etc are an acceptable price to pay to upgrade that to t2. i don't expect to have max tank and yield, but on the other hand fitting for max yield shouldn't stop me filling my mid slots with useful modules. (again, even if they have to be meta 4 to fit.) That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many? TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Dave Stark
4244
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:38:00 -
[325] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many?
if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no. |

Ekkentros Mercari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:43:00 -
[326] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many? if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no. What would you use the 4 mids for, if you have a better PG and/or CPU? TL;DR: Don't reply. |

Dave Stark
4244
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:45:00 -
[327] - Quote
Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:That's why I'm questioning the presence of 4 mids. On a ship who's tank is meant to suck, why have them? Aside from tank (which, is very difficult to fit on a hulk), is there any point in having so many? if they nerf the innate ehp, yes. if not, then no. What would you use the 4 mids for, if you have a better PG and/or CPU? tank? not quite sure tracking enhancers are all that useful on a hulk. |

La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1446
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:15:00 -
[328] - Quote
Alaekessa wrote:La Nariz wrote:Alaekessa wrote:Point that finger another direction, I didn't whine for that. I'll do that once you start campaigning for highsec risk increases or reward decreases, until then you're just another highsec pubbie that is now feeling the pain of making highsec safer and buffing it :smug:. I'll let you tell me what to campaign for once you start admitting that there is a difference between 97 guys in a fleet and 1 guy controlling a 97 account fleet, until then you're just another one of the only ~300 goons that each multibox ~40 accounts to boost your numbers. Yes, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that there really isn't ~12k goons but that there are only really about 300 neckbeards each multiboxing ~40 accounts. Might explain why you defend multiboxing as you do. #tinfoilorisit?
I'm not saying a thing about multiboxing, I'm laughing at you and the highsec crew that whines about how they can't do anything about it. If you and the highsec crew hadn't screamed for safety buffs and ganking nerfs it'd be easier to deal with this. So please continue whining about the bed you and the rest of the highsec pubbies made :smug:. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |

Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:59:00 -
[329] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ekkentros Mercari wrote:Dave Stark wrote:one ship not sucking isn't justification for another ship to have such glaring a flaw. OK. I'll complain about the Nereus's mining yield. After all, the hulk's strength in yield isn't justification for the Nereys's glaring flaw, right? no because the nereus isn't a mining ship. if you're resorting to nonsense because you haven't got a legitimate point, stop posting. it's less embarrassing for both of us.
nereus my not be a mining ship, but it is one hell of a pvp ship. The Black Prince of Wormholes a.k.a The Black Prince of The East
Professional Nereus Gang Fighter
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy |

Tronjay the'3rd
IGNOTUS AGENDA Cult of War
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 02:19:00 -
[330] - Quote
SO what, this guy is having fun. Let him be and do his thing as you do yours.
1 way or another this guy makes my capitals jump to where i want them to be.
sà¦FÇàn+îF¬¡TüôS¦ƒpÇéµòàFâ+FÇîtñ¦S¦ïS+ìFâ+n+îtö¿FÇîtñ¦S¦ïS+ìtö¿n+îF+æFÇîtñ¦S¦ïTüán+îTüáFÇîtñ¦S¦ïF+æ
Sun Tzu -¬ |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |