Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:22:56 -
[811] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%. Except once again, all that is doing is crippling those ships while all other ships are being buffed. Ships who could fit a DC but it was better not to will be getting a resist buff that their fits would never have included (this includes gank ships which will be harder to kill but didn't include a DC prior to the change), while fits that used a DC will get a base resist buff then a free lowslot, either to increase the resist further with a new DC or to improve another aspect of their ship. Your ideas to exclude freighters from the buff and thus give them a nerf relative to other ships comes purely from you wanting to shield your playstyle from an increased effort requirement, not from a desire to improve the game.
You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships. |
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:23:28 -
[812] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ArmyOfMe wrote:baltec1 wrote:
But I agree, a lot of other ships are also getting a buff they simply do not need. The Hecate for example is getting a buff .
Again you go with the lying. The only way the individual hecate is getting a buff, is if they didnt have a dc fitted before. But as far as i can tell, most, if not all hecates ive met, have had a dc fitted. So no, they are not getting a buff then. Oh, and if you think they do, then please show me the math on it, so i can help prove you wrong It has 800 base structure, the added 33% resists directly to the hull will not stack with its defense bonus which adds another 33%. This destroyer is going to have roughly the same hull ehp of todays stabber before you fit any mods to it.
An otherwise naked hecate in defensive mode is going to go from about 5200 EHP to 6300 ehp without a DC fit, with or without trasnverse bulkheads it's going to be about a 20% increase in ehp for any fit without a DC. You'll still lose about a third of your EHP vs any fit that uses a DC. A pretty reasonable decrease, since the extra module you'd fit in it's place would likely be a third magstab that would suffer from a 57.1% effectiveness stacking penalty and thus would net about 11% more DPS.
For combat ships, this seems like a reasonable trade off to me. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7210
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:24:55 -
[813] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:If freighters could shoot other ships, the EHP of other ships (which are currently either fitting damage control both before and after and are thus not getting a buff or are gank ships that don't care about EHP) would be relevant to them. They cannot. Reducing their base hull by the same amount as the resistances they acquire is not nerfing freighters, it is maintaining the status quo. Freighters are supposed to be guarded by other ships though, are they not? Gank ships get shot down by the ships guarding the freighters, so their EHP allows them to sustain more damage meaning more damage output before concord arrives. So not only is it a nerf relative to other ships by buffing all other ships, it's a direct nerf to their survivability against the enemies that hunt them.
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip wrote:You've misread his post. Tweaking the buff to freighters doesn't have any effect on the buff to other ships. Sorry, but I think you've misread mine.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
BoneyTooth Thompkins ISK-Chip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:25:59 -
[814] - Quote
Crackforbreakfast wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion.
You can continue the arguments......
I honestly don't care, we will have N+1 when we gank, so it won't matter
The problem with blanket buffs is that ships that have no need to be buffed get buffed too, often resulting in crazy effects. Thats why blanket buffs are always argued against, they cause more problems than they fix. Problem for who? Relatively small group of high-sec risk free pirates?
I've made several good posts on reddit about what risk is, how risk plays into ganking, and how gankers can decrease risk and how adversaries increase risk. I don't think this is the place for that discussion. Regardless, this seems like a poorly thought out piece to bring up, akin to so what or no u. But if this change doesn't increase risk to gankers, what does it accomplish? |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:31:24 -
[815] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Freighters are supposed to be guarded by other ships though, are they not? Ha, no, they have CCP guarding them. Take a screenshot when you see a freighter flying with dps escort in highsec, you saw a true rarity.
Quote: Gank ships get shot down by the ships guarding the freighters, so their EHP allows them to sustain more damage meaning more damage output before concord arrives. Catalysts are paper before and after this change. They gain all of 562 EHP.
Quote:So not only is it a nerf relative to other ships by buffing all other ships, it's a direct nerf to their survivability against the enemies that hunt them.
Not really, not at all. And the actual practical dps counter, rather than what AG uses, still works just fine. No I am not telling you what it is. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:33:41 -
[816] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No, you have a 99% ship loss rate. Scouts and Bumpers must be counted too if you are going to call everything even.
Okay we have a 99% guaranteed loss rate, the scouts are at normal risk, the bumpers are at normal risk (and do in fact get ganked, quite profitably at that), and the looters are at very high risk as unless the loot is DSTable (which it frequently is not), they have to go suspect in a freighter while surrounded by third parties. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5686
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:44:10 -
[817] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.
We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).
In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.
You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.
We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.
Obviously my friends in CODE will do well out of this change. We have the numbers, organisation, logistical backbone and professionalism to still effectively gank and with less competition ganking freighters will start to carry more. The last buff to freighters was a godsend to us, as we (internally) expected at the time.
We'll be able to afford to train more pilots, PLEX more accounts and pay for more Catalysts with the additional drops we get at the expense of other gankers.
It's however very bad for the future of the game.
What you are saying here to newer players is 'if you want to gank, you need to join CODE. or Miniluv or the Russian gankers'. And to people that want to stay independant, you are saying don't bother.
Competently piloted freighters with an adequate escort are almost unkillable already in highsec and lowsec, and DSTs and BRs are even harder to hit. We can only get the ones stupid enough not to scout AND that are unable to counter bumping.
Carriers are expensive ships (on par with freighters), exceptionally strong ships at their roles (again, similar to freighters), but they aren't balanced around how the most incompetent pilots use them. Freighters should be balanced similarly around the people that use them sensibly (with a scout and a combat escort), and they presently are.
Autopiloting a freighter through a 0.5 choke point should be seen as just as dumb a thing to do as ratting in a carrier in an anomaly in Rancer. You don't make carriers tougher because they die so easily in Rancer, so don't make freighters tougher because idiots lose them being idiots.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7211
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:48:32 -
[818] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Ha, no, they have CCP guarding them. Take a screenshot when you see a freighter flying with dps escort in highsec, you saw a true rarity.
Catalysts are paper before and after this change. They gain all of 562 EHP.
Not really, not at all. And the actual practical dps counter, rather than what AG uses, still works just fine. No I am not telling you what it is. If CCP guarded them they would be unkillable. According to you lot, people are supposed to guard them. If they don't get caught then their EHP never comes into play. If they do get caught, then their EHP is relevant to their defenders. If they choose no defenders they will die, even after the change.
562 EHP gives them an extra second or two on the field, which is quite a bit for ships fit for DPS. ships other than catalysts would benefit more.
Yes really. Excluding them is both a relative nerf and a direct nerf by buffing their opposition.
Careful though, you're dragging this topic back into a discussion on ganking, which it's not about.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7211
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:53:13 -
[819] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:What you are saying here to newer players is 'if you want to gank, you need to join CODE. or Miniluv or the Russian gankers'. And to people that want to stay independant, you are saying don't bother. I'm not sure how many new players can leap in and start killing freighters now. It's really not a solo activity, it being a capital ship and that.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Competently piloted freighters with an adequate escort are almost unkillable already in highsec and lowsec, and DSTs and BRs are even harder to hit. We can only get the ones stupid enough not to scout AND that are unable to counter bumping. They aren't harder to kill due to EHP though, their EHP doesn't come into play if they avoid being picked as a target and/or avoid the bumper.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Autopiloting a freighter through a 0.5 choke point should be seen as just as dumb a thing to do as ratting in a carrier in an anomaly in Rancer. It still will be. More importantly, if they chose to buff all capital ships, they wouldn't exclude carriers because some people are ratting in rancer arguing that the entire ship class deserves to be punished.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:13:32 -
[820] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous. This reminds me of the comedian who earlier stated that freighters would have a 100% survival rate if they only stayed docked. If gankers did not perform acts of aggression, their loss rate would be zero. Every ganker loss results from a deliberate decision - very different from the hauler side - so risk on the ganker side is a meaningless concept. In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements. |
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:20:16 -
[821] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:We have a 100% ship loss rate (without insurance unlike all other ship loss). You can call that "risk free" if you like because our losses are the same whether we succeed or not, but you know it's more than a little disingenous. This reminds me of the comedian who earlier stated that freighters would have a 100% survival rate if they only stayed docked. If gankers did not perform acts of aggression, their loss rate would be zero. Every ganker loss results from a deliberate decision - very different from the hauler side - so risk on the ganker side is a meaningless concept. In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements.
Okay, make concord tankable, then we can have risk too as our aggression doesn't equate to ship loss. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
328
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:22:53 -
[822] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:I have never liked the idea of "Special Snowflakes" when you make a change to every ship, then excluding 4 or 8 isn't really something that you want to do IMO, it just causes confusion. There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%. That messes with the bulkhead mods.
Yeah, this change is multi faceted, that was kind of my point.....that and it probably won't be solved here.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:29:02 -
[823] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:There's a really simple way to apply this change to all ships while not affecting ones that couldn't previously fit a damage control (freighters, JFs, shuttles, pods): decrease their base hull HP by 33%. That messes with the bulkhead mods.
Not in the slightest. Bulkhead mods are a percentage increase in hull HP, not a flat increase. Where current hull ehp is x, triple bulkheaded ehp is 1.25^3 x because percentage hull hp modifier isn't a stacking penalised stat. Fozzie's changes make hull ehp x / .67 (which is 1.5 x), or a triple bulkheaded freighter 1.25^3 x / .67. Under my suggestion, the new hull ehp would be .67 x / .67 = x and bulkheaded would be 1.25^3 * .67 x / .67 = 1.25^3 x.
In short, please review basic algebra. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
16265
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:43:34 -
[824] - Quote
Ylmar wrote:In this completely unbalanced scenario, buffing hull resists as proposed by CCP Fozzie is a good thing, since it strengthens the side that has far less choice in the matter of highsec engagements.
Your blatantly dishonest rhetoric aside, the hauler is the only side whose choices matter at all.
Actually defending yourself is so overpowered that if you do it, you have better odds of getting in a real life car accident on the way home than you do of getting ganked.
Only the choices of the freighter pilot matter at all, because unless they choose wrong, the ganker never even gets to make his choice one way or the other. If every hauler acted like real players instead of lazy entitled babies, ganking would stop existing in a day or two.
And that tells you which side really has all the power here. Or it would, if you weren't dishonest.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
TRAINSPOTTING
336
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:50:19 -
[825] - Quote
For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot
|
Aiwha
Infinite Point Northern Army
985
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:50:33 -
[826] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances.
We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks!
Can you give us a comment on the "CPU creep" a lot of players are describing in recent patches, including this one? More and more it seems that CPU is becoming the main limiting factor in fittings with PG only being relevant with oversized fittings.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Aiwha for CSM XI
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:58:58 -
[827] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:If CCP guarded them they would be unkillable. According to you lot, people are supposed to guard them. If they don't get caught then their EHP never comes into play. If they do get caught, then their EHP is relevant to their defenders. If they choose no defenders they will die, even after the change.
562 EHP gives them an extra second or two on the field, which is quite a bit for ships fit for DPS. ships other than catalysts would benefit more.
EHP is considered so relevant by gankers that a large number of catalyst pilots created before the new starting skills do not even have hull upgrades or shield management injected and haven't trained a level of mechanics. Defenders could make it relevant, but... well...
AG is so incompetent that it's frankly embarrassing to everyone involved, they're like cartoon villains. They largely fly complete failfits (actual example: a curse with no neuts, no tracking disruptors, nothing but sebos and point; I am not aware that he has had any effect on a gank to date, but he sure is persistent) and can't even use correctly fitted ships properly. A number of them fly interceptors but I don't remember the last time we've been tackled at an undock bookmark or a ping, and one of the ganks we did the other day was discussed on comms for over half an hour before the gank, took us through five stargates, we had taloses with us and a grand total of one catalyst was pointed.
It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters.
(Don't get me wrong though, I'm not happy about the increase in EHP on untanked ships other than freighters either. Freighters are just the more drastic change that needs to be prevented.) |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:00:17 -
[828] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot That's the "rage" part of ragequitting. Anyway my account hasn't expired. |
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:07:03 -
[829] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Actually defending yourself is so overpowered that if you do it, you have better odds of getting in a real life car accident on the way home than you do of getting ganked. For your own sake better not bring real life into this. In real life, pirates, thieves and other asocial individuals are hunted down and locked away, their stolen assets siezed, if they threaten civilized society and the wellbeing of others, or simply because they disrupt commerce. In real life, there is absolutely nothing romantic or desirable about piracy and theft. |
Marisol Aldurad
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:14:24 -
[830] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:You've raised the CPU cost a lot in this tiericide: Faint Epsilon scram by 2 (no one will use the other named because the range is too short) Sebo II by 6 Phased Muon damp by 7 TP formally known as PWNAGE by 4 The IFFA by 3 You've lowered the CPU cost of only one module I can think of, the Fleeting web by 1.
You know, some of us use the DC for the non-stacking penalized armor or shield bonus more than the hull bonus, and some of us use the IFFA on our ships because they're frigates and don't have any CPU to begin with! I don't know why you guys are so infatuated with round numbers all of a sudden. You don't actually have to make everything a multiple of 5. Just lower the cost to 17, and reduce the bonuses a little if needed to justify the fitting reduction.
Telling us to use the garbage compact damage mod or not fit a DC is just a cop out.
I agree wholeheartedly. I understand the idea of offering more discreet options, but the constant increases to the fitting requirements of modules, like Alexis kindly showcased, will invalidate a TON of fits and to no good purpose. Please re-examine the fitting costs across the board in this latest Tiericide for March. |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7212
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:28:29 -
[831] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters. Maybe not, but it is a sign of what playstyles are being selected by players, and you have to ask yourself, why are no competent players chosing to be an AG?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:For someone who's ragequitting, you certainly post an awful lot Nobody quits EVE, we all know this. It's like crack.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:33:43 -
[832] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:It's not our fault that only bad players try to save freighters. Maybe not, but it is a sign of what playstyles are being selected by players, and you have to ask yourself, why are no competent players chosing to be an AG?
Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun.
Quote:Nobody quits EVE, we all know this. It's like crack.
It's literally like crack, I've been getting withdrawal shakes from not killing carebears. |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
370
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:35:28 -
[833] - Quote
A lot of amarr ships are cpu starved, and the various module changes seem to be a net gain in cpu required on most fits. Telling us to just remove our DCUs so that we have more cpu is pretty daft.
And then to add insult to injury eccm modules are getting better. A midslot module. A certain race of ships are classically midslot gimped.
And then the FW lp stores of that race's enemies are getting shiny stuff.
Thanks ofozzie. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7212
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:39:37 -
[834] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun. I completely agree, which is why they should be given better mechanics to cause explosions opposing your own and a reasonable shot at winning the field. If not new active mechanics can be discussed reasonably, then more passive defense as in this post will give more time for more explosions to occur.
Masao Kurata wrote:It's literally like crack, I've been getting withdrawal shakes from not killing carebears. You can keep going right up until your sub expires... then resub
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
388
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:24:32 -
[835] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Explosions are fun. The absence of explosions is not fun. I completely agree, which is why they should be given better mechanics to cause explosions opposing your own and a reasonable shot at winning the field. If not new active mechanics can be discussed reasonably, then more passive defense as in this post will give more time for more explosions to occur.
The existing mechanics work, they're just not being used, but that's incredibly off topic for this thread. More EHP just means we won't undock gank fleets. There is no point undocking if it is mathematically impossible to win. |
Nitshe Razvedka
State War Academy Caldari State
464
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:27:06 -
[836] - Quote
Never one to stir the pot, nor upset CODE (much).
Well done CCP in addressing the Ganker imbalance.
Fleecing carebears in hisec by Gankers is a profit driven enterprise. (If gankers raise the straw-man issue of AFK mining/hauling, allow these ships to fit more effective tgt breakers for AK pilots.)
Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start.
I would like to hear other market/profit driven incentives to A-G, even from gankers, its all about the content creation. yes.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
388
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:31:12 -
[837] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start.
Sure. In return, please remove facpol since players will be given incentives to do their job. |
Nitshe Razvedka
State War Academy Caldari State
464
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:39:43 -
[838] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. Sure. In return, please remove facpol since players will be given incentives to do their job.
If you gave me the powers of facpol GAME-ON.
Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS.
Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
388
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:41:13 -
[839] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:If you gave me the powers of facpol GAME-ON.
You mean spawning 20km from someone at any time and infinite respawning? No dice. No drone jamming for you either.
EDIT: But seriously, facpol don't do anything but prevent anything interesting happening, they should go. Should probably make a thread about that. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5690
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 02:21:01 -
[840] - Quote
Nitshe Razvedka wrote:Never one to stir the pot, nor upset CODE (much). Well done CCP in addressing the Ganker imbalance. Fleecing carebears in hisec by Gankers is a profit driven enterprise. (If gankers raise the straw-man issue of AFK mining/hauling, allow these ships to fit more effective tgt breakers for AK pilots.) Now we need a profit driven reason to Anti-Gank. LP's simular to FW is a good start. I would like to hear other market/profit driven incentives to A-G, even from gankers, its all about the content creation. yes.
Well you'd think that anti-gankers would charge a fee for a freighter save, and anyone that doesn't pay doesn't get saved again (or possibly gets marked on a list to be ganked by A-G).
But that would require the A-G folks to be rational. The rational ones generally end up changing sides because the A-G community is so toxic at present.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |