EVE Search - Hiding from wardecs.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Hiding from wardecs.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2903	Posted - 2015.06.23 00:52:06 - [91] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Omar Alharazaad wrote: Veers, you know there aren't any griefers in EVE.... they're too busy on public minecraft servers to have anything to do with internet spaceships. So, hypothetically speaking. If I were to form a 1 man corp and wardec you Veers, would you reform and dodge the dec... or would you come out and play with me? It wouldn't be unfair. I'm pretty bad at pvp and you've got some nullsec green on your killboard. I'd pretty much be at a disadvantage. The former, of course. The art of winning is denying your opponents the opportunity to force you play THEIR game. Wardeccs aren't just about killing things, they are about forcing PvE players to PvP without CONCORD backup. Actually fighting the war means the wardeccer wins. Not normally being one to directly agree with Veers, with him simply being the other extreme opposite the "Everyone must be forced to die!" crowd, but this is very much the truth of it. If someone has no interest in the "pew pew" variety of PvP, they aren't forced to do that. EVE gives people plenty of options and evasion is simply one of them, and generally the most efficient one for small groups with no space assets and zero interest in shooting people. I'm 100% for that Lucas, as long as evasion is active piloting skills and not being sheltered by theme park mechanics. Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6318	Posted - 2015.06.23 07:19:27 - [92] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: I'm 100% for that Lucas, as long as evasion is active piloting skills and not being sheltered by theme park mechanics. Evasion comes in many forms. Like when people play docking games it's fine for them to use to safety of the station. Reforming a corp is only really available to small corps with no assets and it's part of the game. Learn to accept that if you pick a target that small that he's going to use valid mechanics to avoid you, just like the station huggers. Everything that's done in game will always be a mixture of player skills and mechanics. That you call them theme park is just your personal opinion. It doesn't make them objectively wrong. I'm sure there's loads of things you don't like that others do in many games, so like it or lump it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2334	Posted - 2015.06.23 17:36:49 - [93] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: ..pooh... ...pooh... Hello, To not ruin my pooh-free forum immersion, it is politely requested that people do not inline-quote Veers or Lucas, so my 'Hide Posts' setting can function properly. Thank you for your consideration, F Would you like to know more?
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 149	Posted - 2015.06.23 19:19:14 - [94] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The former, of course. The art of winning is denying your opponents the opportunity to force you play THEIR game. Wardeccs aren't just about killing things, they are about forcing PvE players to PvP without CONCORD backup. Actually fighting the war means the wardeccer wins. Being a "PvE player" in EVE isn't a thing that exists right now. I'm not sure you know what game you're playing. Noragen Neirfallas wrote: This makes me a sad panda. What are you intrested in in the game other then not backing down for no reason? A dude in your corp instalocked one of my toons who is at war with you on a gate when I was flying a travel fit Tengu. It was an embarrassing gin and tonic filled night for me, and probably a happy night for him. I'm still grumbling over the new train back up to subsystem 5. And I will drink and eve in smaller ships.
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2905	Posted - 2015.06.23 21:40:36 - [95] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Leto Thule wrote: I'm 100% for that Lucas, as long as evasion is active piloting skills and not being sheltered by theme park mechanics. Evasion comes in many forms. Like when people play docking games it's fine for them to use to safety of the station. Reforming a corp is only really available to small corps with no assets and it's part of the game. Learn to accept that if you pick a target that small that he's going to use valid mechanics to avoid you, just like the station huggers. Everything that's done in game will always be a mixture of player skills and mechanics. That you call them theme park is just your personal opinion. It doesn't make them objectively wrong. I'm sure there's loads of things you don't like that others do in many games, so like it or lump it. I don't pick targets. Highsec is far too down the lane to candy castle for me, Lucas. Reforming a corp is fine, as long as there is a consequence for it, just like every other part of EVE. I don't expect people to make the same game choices that I do, but they should have to deal with people doing things they don't agree with too. It's the way the universe works. Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 1053	Posted - 2015.06.23 22:38:45 - [96] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The former, of course. The art of winning is denying your opponents the opportunity to force you play THEIR game. Wardeccs aren't just about killing things, they are about forcing PvE players to PvP without CONCORD backup. Actually fighting the war means the wardeccer wins. Being a "PvE player" in EVE isn't a thing that exists right now. I'm not sure you know what game you're playing. Noragen Neirfallas wrote: This makes me a sad panda. What are you intrested in in the game other then not backing down for no reason? A dude in your corp instalocked one of my toons who is at war with you on a gate when I was flying a travel fit Tengu. It was an embarrassing gin and tonic filled night for me, and probably a happy night for him. I'm still grumbling over the new train back up to subsystem 5. And I will drink and eve in smaller ships. I recently killed a tengu. Was it me? I do take pleasure in killing anything caldari Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Freya Sertan Ministry of War Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2015.06.23 23:39:01 - [97] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Petre en Thielles wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: poop Being a "PvE player" in EVE isn't a thing that exists right now. I'm not sure you know what game you're playing. Noragen Neirfallas wrote: This makes me a sad panda. What are you intrested in in the game other then not backing down for no reason? A dude in your corp instalocked one of my toons who is at war with you on a gate when I was flying a travel fit Tengu. It was an embarrassing gin and tonic filled night for me, and probably a happy night for him. I'm still grumbling over the new train back up to subsystem 5. And I will drink and eve in smaller ships. I recently killed a tengu. Was it me? I do take pleasure in killing anything caldari RIGHT?! They're not the ugliest (hi minmatar) but there is something about their angularity that makes me want them to be wrecks. New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face. Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 590	Posted - 2015.06.24 03:23:56 - [98] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The former, of course. The art of winning is denying your opponents the opportunity to force you play THEIR game. Wardeccs aren't just about killing things, they are about forcing PvE players to PvP without CONCORD backup. Actually fighting the war means the wardeccer wins. Being a "PvE player" in EVE isn't a thing that exists right now. I'm not sure you know what game you're playing. I heard it's called Eve. Highsec has an active and infallible police force enabling players to pursue PvE activities.
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2905	Posted - 2015.06.24 04:18:57 - [99] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Petre en Thielles wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The former, of course. The art of winning is denying your opponents the opportunity to force you play THEIR game. Wardeccs aren't just about killing things, they are about forcing PvE players to PvP without CONCORD backup. Actually fighting the war means the wardeccer wins. Being a "PvE player" in EVE isn't a thing that exists right now. I'm not sure you know what game you're playing. I heard it's called Eve. Highsec has an active and infallible police force enabling players to pursue PvE activities. Wrong again, dear Veers. CONCORD destroys ships that redcard. They don't actively hunt anyone, and as many have seen, no ship is safe from enough DPS. And they are far from infallible, because if they were, no losses would occur. How are those feathers working out? Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6319	Posted - 2015.06.24 07:57:00 - [100] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Leto Thule wrote: I'm 100% for that Lucas, as long as evasion is active piloting skills and not being sheltered by theme park mechanics. Evasion comes in many forms. Like when people play docking games it's fine for them to use to safety of the station. Reforming a corp is only really available to small corps with no assets and it's part of the game. Learn to accept that if you pick a target that small that he's going to use valid mechanics to avoid you, just like the station huggers. Everything that's done in game will always be a mixture of player skills and mechanics. That you call them theme park is just your personal opinion. It doesn't make them objectively wrong. I'm sure there's loads of things you don't like that others do in many games, so like it or lump it. I don't pick targets. Highsec is far too down the lane to candy castle for me, Lucas. Reforming a corp is fine, as long as there is a consequence for it, just like every other part of EVE. I don't expect people to make the same game choices that I do, but they should have to deal with people doing things they don't agree with too. It's the way the universe works. Then we agree, since there is a consequence. A consequence that scales rapidly with the size and complexity of your corp. A 1 man corp has a small amount of isk to pay. A 5 man corp has a small amount of isk and 4 invites. A 10 man corp with industry queues and offices has cancelled jobs, assets to shift out of offices, a small amount of isk to pay and 9 invites. A 20 man corp with jobs, trades, offices and space assets has jobs to cancel, trades to cancel with lost broker fees, assets to shift, space assets to tear down and put back up, a small amount of isk to pay and 19 invites. The bigger and more complex the corp the more significant the consequences and the less viable the option is. Seems legit to me. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 1054	Posted - 2015.06.24 09:25:53 - [101] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Leto Thule wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Leto Thule wrote: I'm 100% for that Lucas, as long as evasion is active piloting skills and not being sheltered by theme park mechanics. Evasion comes in many forms. Like when people play docking games it's fine for them to use to safety of the station. Reforming a corp is only really available to small corps with no assets and it's part of the game. Learn to accept that if you pick a target that small that he's going to use valid mechanics to avoid you, just like the station huggers. Everything that's done in game will always be a mixture of player skills and mechanics. That you call them theme park is just your personal opinion. It doesn't make them objectively wrong. I'm sure there's loads of things you don't like that others do in many games, so like it or lump it. I don't pick targets. Highsec is far too down the lane to candy castle for me, Lucas. Reforming a corp is fine, as long as there is a consequence for it, just like every other part of EVE. I don't expect people to make the same game choices that I do, but they should have to deal with people doing things they don't agree with too. It's the way the universe works. Then we agree, since there is a consequence. A consequence that scales rapidly with the size and complexity of your corp. A 1 man corp has a small amount of isk to pay. A 5 man corp has a small amount of isk and 4 invites. A 10 man corp with industry queues and offices has cancelled jobs, assets to shift out of offices, a small amount of isk to pay and 9 invites. A 20 man corp with jobs, trades, offices and space assets has jobs to cancel, trades to cancel with lost broker fees, assets to shift, space assets to tear down and put back up, a small amount of isk to pay and 19 invites. The bigger and more complex the corp the more significant the consequences and the less viable the option is. Seems legit to me. The small amount of isk should be a larger amount of isk imo. Along with many other changes but that is defiantly one of them that should tie in with the social corp setup Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6320	Posted - 2015.06.24 10:09:38 - [102] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: The small amount of isk should be a larger amount of isk imo. Along with many other changes but that is defiantly one of them that should tie in with the social corp setup Why? That would just be shifting the scale up having a drastic effect on 1 man corps and no effect on large corps. Most corps worth their salt that are more than just alts or use any form of assets won't reform anyway, they'll just stay in station and use alts to haul. You want to punish 1 man corps by forcing them to pay more to setup corps just because you want to wardec them and get upset when they easily reform. That's entirely your problem for picking terrible targets. As I have always said, if your war target reforms their corp to avoid you then you failed to select a target, it's that simple. Stop being fail at EVE and targets won't evade you using legitimate mechanics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Princess of Hades Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 10:10:12 - [103] - Quote Maybe we need corp fatigue ? Every time you close down a corp, it takes longer for you to recreate one.
Lan Wang V I R I I Triumvirate. 836	Posted - 2015.06.24 10:18:42 - [104] - Quote Princess of Hades wrote: Maybe we need corp fatigue ? Every time you close down a corp, it takes longer for you to recreate one. maybe wardec fatigue aswell? EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding \| Digital Design
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 1054	Posted - 2015.06.24 11:14:30 - [105] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: The small amount of isk should be a larger amount of isk imo. Along with many other changes but that is defiantly one of them that should tie in with the social corp setup Why? That would just be shifting the scale up having a drastic effect on 1 man corps and no effect on large corps. Most corps worth their salt that are more than just alts or use any form of assets won't reform anyway, they'll just stay in station and use alts to haul. You want to punish 1 man corps by forcing them to pay more to setup corps just because you want to wardec them and get upset when they easily reform. That's entirely your problem for picking terrible targets. As I have always said, if your war target reforms their corp to avoid you then you failed to select a target, it's that simple. Stop being fail at EVE and targets won't evade you using legitimate mechanics. I do dig that you cant read 2 sentences. Ok so why should a 1 man corp get all the advantages of a 50 man corp with none of the risk a 50 man corp has? (highsec based of course). The start up cost for a corp is laughable. The start up cost for an alliance is staggering in comparison. forming your own player corp should be something for a brand new player to work towards and something that isn't laughable for an established player. Other changes need to come in (and very well may with the way the wind is blowing) but the establishing of a proper player corp with all the bells and whistles should be a milestone and not cost less then basic fit frigate. I have no issues personally with any 1 man corps so saying I get upset is a bit presumptuous. It would be like me saying your butt hurt over not being able to use highsec. The actual issue I have with it is I can stick my ALT's in one, as other mercs do, and set my standings, have all the corp benefits and should anybody decide that they have had enough of my ALT corp providing me with assistance I just reform it and go again. I should no more be allowed to dodge decs this way (which I do) then anybody else's ALT corp does. I want the risk/cost ratio to be more on par yes. Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2906	Posted - 2015.06.24 11:19:29 - [106] - Quote Lucas - yeah, your right. But I don't know how much I care about 1 man corps. Personally I think if you close the corp you should have a fine which is paid to the wardeccer. I mean they "won", right? Actually that sounds awesome. Both fatigue ideas are good as well. However... Wardec fatigue would, I think, mirror image the current problem. Without consequence, you would see wardec corps reforming to drop the fatigue. Highsec war is broken, on both sides. Personally I never understood war in highsec, as there are very few corps that actually use it to gain moons or POCOs or whatever highseccers do. It's good for lols and killing people who don't know how to fit or fly. Yes, I know sometimes that's fun, just not my cup of tea most of the time. Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6320	Posted - 2015.06.24 12:07:11 - [107] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: Ok so why should a 1 man corp get all the advantages of a 50 man corp with none of the risk a 50 man corp has? (highsec based of course). The start up cost for a corp is laughable. The start up cost for an alliance is staggering in comparison. forming your own player corp should be something for a brand new player to work towards and something that isn't laughable for an established player. You don't have all the benefits. For starters you have 49 less players contributing. Most benefits you do use (such as putting up a POS or using corp wallets for trading) will make it a considerably larger and more costly task to reform. Changing the startup cost won't make people fight, they'll still just use alts to evade. Noragen Neirfallas wrote: I have no issues personally with any 1 man corps so saying I get upset is a bit presumptuous. Then why are you whining about a change that would primarily affect 1 man corps? Noragen Neirfallas wrote: The actual issue I have with it is I can stick my ALT's in one, as other mercs do, and set my standings, have all the corp benefits and should anybody decide that they have had enough of my ALT corp providing me with assistance I just reform it and go again. I should no more be allowed to dodge decs this way (which I do) then anybody else's ALT corp does. I want the risk/cost ratio to be more on par yes. If you couldn't do this you'd just find another way to do the same. Your talking about a corp you're specifically setting up to be disposable. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6320	Posted - 2015.06.24 12:10:07 - [108] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Lucas - yeah, your right. But I don't know how much I care about 1 man corps. Personally I think if you close the corp you should have a fine which is paid to the wardeccer. I mean they "won", right? Actually that sounds awesome. The problem with this is it would perpetuate the current problem with wardecs which is that you are better rewarded for picking easier targets. If you dot directly paid for mass wardeccing tiny one man corps it would be even worse than it currently is. Leto Thule wrote: Both fatigue ideas are good as well. However... Wardec fatigue would, I think, mirror image the current problem. Without consequence, you would see wardec corps reforming to drop the fatigue. I'd be against most blanket mechanical limitations. Fatigue as it is used to limit force projection is terrible and very much against the sandbox, applying similar mechanics to other areas of the game would be just as terrible. I'd prefer it if they just found ways to encourage wardeccers to pick realistically challenging fights and ways to encourage their targets to fight back. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 152	Posted - 2015.06.24 12:20:27 - [109] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: I heard it's called Eve. Highsec has an active and infallible police force enabling players to pursue PvE activities. Highsec has a policeforce that gives a consequence for PvP, it doesn't prevent it. how long have you been playing EVE and you still can't grasp this? Noragen Neirfallas wrote: I recently killed a tengu. Was it me? I do take pleasure in killing anything caldari Unfortunately, no, it wasn't you. I got what was coming not being more careful with so many wardecs right now.
Princess of Hades Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.06.24 12:43:36 - [110] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: Princess of Hades wrote: Maybe we need corp fatigue ? Every time you close down a corp, it takes longer for you to recreate one. maybe wardec fatigue aswell? Why not, every time you end a war, it takes longer before you can war dec them again ?

Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2624	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:01:21 - [111] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Lucas - yeah, your right. But I don't know how much I care about 1 man corps. Personally I think if you close the corp you should have a fine which is paid to the wardeccer. I mean they "won", right? Actually that sounds awesome. Both fatigue ideas are good as well. However... Wardec fatigue would, I think, mirror image the current problem. Without consequence, you would see wardec corps reforming to drop the fatigue. Highsec war is broken, on both sides. Personally I never understood war in highsec, as there are very few corps that actually use it to gain moons or POCOs or whatever highseccers do. It's good for lols and killing people who don't know how to fit or fly. Yes, I know sometimes that's fun, just not my cup of tea most of the time. Actually a lot of people use wars to get POCOs however because everything about the war system is so heavily biased in favor of the defender that 90% of the time they hire mercs to do it for them. Moons are less common because frankly they're an abundant resource and the difficulty of destroying a properly set up tower as well as the nuisance of POS reinforcement timers makes contracts to destroy them incredibly expensive. War fatigue timers would be enormously detrimental to mercenaries as they'd place a hard mechanical limit on your ability to take contracts, it would also be incompatible with the way corporations leaving alliances generates new wars. I also don't see how imposing limits on aggression would in any way improve highsec gameplay, which is already becoming increasingly devoid of ways for people to initiate conflicts. Similarly restrictions on people doing what they want regarding their corporation membership just prevents people from being part of the group they want to be in and ultimately if someone doesn't want to be at war and has nothing invested in their corporation they wouldn't be heavily impacted by being in an NPC corp anyway. The way to approach collapsing and reforming corporations as well as the ridiculous levels of passiveness of players in highsec corporations is to make corp membership and a corp being well established more valuable to players and worth defending. Adding punishments to running away and arbitrary limits on aggression would just annoy everyone involved.
Lan Wang V I R I I Triumvirate. 837	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:13:01 - [112] - Quote assigning mercs to different wardecs, sort of like delgating work as such, you wardec who you want but you need to assign corp members to fight that war, those corp member are not involved in your other wardecs and vice versa (proper contract style?), that would mean merc corps can actually exhaust the resources they can use, say a 50man corp would need a minimum amount of available corp members to fight say 10+ if you dont have that available because they are fighting other wars then you get a message "sorry you do not have enough personel to fight this war" etc etc its probably a bad idea... EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding \| Digital Design
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2627	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:19:20 - [113] - Quote That doesn't even make sense.
Lan Wang V I R I I Triumvirate. 837	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:19:46 - [114] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: That doesn't even make sense. it did in my head say you want to wardec a 50 man corp, you have to delegate a certain amount of your own corp/alliance members to participate in that war and so on. you only have 200 pilots in your alliance and you delegate say 70 to that war, that leaves you with 130 pilots left to delegate to any other wardecs, means you have to pick wisely who you wardec as your limited by your pilots on how many wardecs you can run. or something like that... EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding \| Digital Design
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 1056	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:25:50 - [115] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: assigning mercs to different wardecs, sort of like delgating work as such, you wardec who you want but you need to assign corp members to fight that war, those corp member are not involved in your other wardecs and vice versa (proper contract style?), that would mean merc corps can actually exhaust the resources they can use, say a 50man corp would need a minimum amount of available corp members to fight say 10+ if you dont have that available because they are fighting other wars then you get a message "sorry you do not have enough personel to fight this war" etc etc its probably a bad idea... but i dont know how this would work from a defenders point of view Next up we ensure that every fight in eve is completely consensual. We could even take this idea a step further and make all aggression in all space duel based so that you or your fc have to accept a duel to actually fight the opponents. Then we can take it a step further and close eve down and just play wow Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Lan Wang V I R I I Triumvirate. 837	Posted - 2015.06.24 14:30:26 - [116] - Quote thats not making anything consensual, you wardec who you want and they might be more encouraged to fight, you want penalties for people hiding from wardecs, you should also have penalties for mass wardecs. when you enter low and null you are in theory accepting pvp at the gate. EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding \| Digital Design
Noragen Neirfallas Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective 1056	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:11:43 - [117] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: thats not making anything consensual, you wardec who you want and they might be more encouraged to fight, you want penalties for people hiding from wardecs, you should also have penalties for mass wardecs. when you enter low and null you are in theory accepting pvp at the gate. The moment you undock you have consented to PvP. As for the rest if you follow my f&I thread you would know I propose a whole new approach to the wars system. I could turn this into a lengthy debate but let's leave it at rolling corps is a broken mechanic due to its complete lack of risk and no consequences. Mass wars isn't a good mechanic either but they will and need to exist until a conflict driver in high sec emerges. Pocos and pos's are not an answer. Nor are citadels. A whole new approach is needed I think Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Forum BFFL of Mo
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6320	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:37:26 - [118] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: let's leave it at rolling corps is a broken mechanic due to its complete lack of risk and no consequences. I disagree. It has a risk and consequences proportional to the size and complexity of the corp. You're simply upset that the lowest end of that scale exists and wan to punish them until their gameplay is no longer feasible. Maybe if you guys grew a pair and stopped attacking soft targets you'd have less trouble from corp rollers. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Azn 1337 Kune Do 75	Posted - 2015.06.24 17:21:18 - [119] - Quote This thread was ok until the heaviest user of Anusol in known space, second only to Veers arrived. Hi Lucas. Still furiously defending your low hanging fruit I see. Have you tried coughing? The only alt allowed to post in C&P
Leto Thule Origin. Black Legion. 2908	Posted - 2015.06.24 21:21:22 - [120] - Quote Azn wrote: This thread was ok until the heaviest user of Anusol in known space, second only to Veers arrived. Hi Lucas. Still furiously defending your low hanging fruit I see. Have you tried coughing? Lucas is way better than Veers. Differing viewpoints are inevitable, at least Lucas defends his arguments with an attempt at logic. Veers just sucks. Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.