|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
   |
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
I approve! Now if you want to gank a high value target you have to pay the price. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cpt Fina wrote:Terrible change.
CCPs dogma "No space is safe" is only true aslong as nobody is complaining about it on the forums.
High sec isn't completely safe. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Selinate wrote:If you find someone floating around in space with a ton of expensive stuff in their cargo hold and want to suicide gank them, fine, but you really shouldn't get the majority of the isk loss from your lost ship back also... It's rather one-sided in favor of the suicide gankers in that case. It's only one-sided if the victim chooses to make it one-sided by not equipping his ship properly, by not flying it properly, and by not enforcing the consequences on the aggressor.
Even a ship fit and flown properly isn't invincible.
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
In this current situation it was the right choice to make.
If I want to kill a specific person in high security space I just have to catch him in space and kill him. This hasn't changed. CCP has only balanced the risk and reward.
I would high five CCP if players get the ability to gank other players in incarna.  That would rock. |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:Even a ship fit and flown properly isn't invincible. Against ganks, it most certainly is. DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably?
in-+vin-+ci-+ble
adj.
Incapable of being overcome or defeated; unconquerable.
Say whaaaaaaat? |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Max Von Sydow wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Tippia wrote:DarkAegix wrote:Excellent, now New Eden makes a little bit more logical sense. So you're in favour of removing CONCORD, presumably? And you must be in tears, presumably? Delicious Tippia tears.
BEST tears! 
-Can we call them Tt's from now on? |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
56
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.
Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!
High-sec is meant to be safeR! I'm glad CCP changed this.
finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.
Miners 1 - Gankers 0 <--- SUCK IT
So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!
Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.
There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.
/inflammatory comments
FTFY
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 04:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
Villandra Chassind wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:[ BEST tears! -Can we call them Tt's from now on? Why not go the whole hog and refer to it as "Tippia in Tears". Everyone loves T i Ts right?
I approve. T i T s!
While we remove the insurance payout can we please take out this annoying filter? |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
rootimus maximus wrote:Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec.
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial
Shadow Directive
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:rootimus maximus wrote:Pok Nibin wrote: your unfounded assumption that "high sec should be less safe." If highsec was meant to be completely safe CCP would implment something to prevent any aggressive modules being activated, just like they stop bomb launchers working in high and lowsec.
Ugh....pretty much what matrix just said. You need to go back and read what was written.
CCP please fix your forums. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|