Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
PirateShampoo
Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:10:00 -
[991]
Edited by: PirateShampoo on 30/03/2007 15:07:32
Quote: What you are failing to realize is that the 700 rule is anything but that. Its an arbitrary thing that suspect (all of ccp is suspect after recent events)GMs can throw around and use willy nilly...When it suits them and their goals. Just stop and think why is it these things never ever go against BoB? Coincidence can only account for so much people. Open your eyes and look at all of the evidence logically. Only on sensible conclusion can be made.
CCP has never said the limit was arbitrary where do you get these supposed facts from? The blog said 700 and when 700 got into the system the cap was activated, looks completely automated to me. In addition given the fact that BoB could also not get their support fleet in due to the cap completely rubbishes your proposition that BoB received so called unfair advantage due to the cap.
|
Johnny ReeRee
The ReeRee Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:14:00 -
[992]
Originally by: Boliknar
What you are failing to realize is that the 700 rule is anything but that. Its an arbitrary thing that suspect (all of ccp is suspect after recent events)GMs can throw around and use willy nilly...When it suits them and their goals. Just stop and think why is it these things never ever go against BoB? Coincidence can only account for so much people. Open your eyes and look at all of the evidence logically. Only on sensible conclusion can be made.
And no I wont just quit. One reason being that I prefer to stick around and see if I can help institute change in something that can still be great fun.
Obviously, any number of sensible conclusions can be reached, but the most sensible one of all is that CCP is simply trying to deal as best they can with a tough situation. You would have preferred a node crash? Your alternatives with current architecture limitations are a node crash or player limits. You pick.
In JV1V you got the node crash -- and you won completely. So I guess you like those now. If CCP is so desperate for the coalition to lose, why did they allow the disaster of JV1V, and then refuse all compensation to LV? LV had no chance whatsoever to defend their system; they got screwed as badly as anyone ever has been in this game. Can you imagine the howling if that'd happened to the Coalition? People like you would have gone berserk.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:20:00 -
[993]
Originally by: DeadDuck Why people are making fun of the coalition losses ?
Do you think the number of losses was due to superior pvp tactics or fleet command capability ?
More then half of the coalition forces never entered the target system not due to blockade forces or defence tactic, but only to game mechanics or because a GM didnt allow it. A Titan and a 200 support fleet never entered the system even making use of a jumpo bridge. We tried 3 times .. not a single ship managed to jump in.
Do you guys really think that we were trying to break the node ? NO, on a personal note I play to have fun not to win a fight at any cost. I'm sure I wasnt the only one thinking the same yesterday...
The coalition lost so many capital ships because they were outnumbered and without any support, not because the Coalition FC's thougt that was a good tactic, but due to the fact that it looks the game fails very badly in delivering a good game experience in big fleet battles.
It wasnt a fair fight, it was very far from being a fair fight. BOB and allies arent the ones to blame, and the coalition side either. The game architecture fails. The 700 pilot limit has nothing to do with alliance capabilites, it has to do with the lack of game capabilities.
The coalition capital fleet jumped in knowing that they would face severe casualties, but the objective of killing the pos was to be achieved. We did it. Stop making fun of the casualties. There is only one entity to make fun, if you have to make fun of something, and that is CCP and their external imposed limits.
I say very nice job to all the involved parties.
Well said. Its a shame that the same old server problems mucked up another battle in such a catastrophic fashion, but gj to all involved anyhow. Coalition got their POS kill, BoB racked up a decent list for their KB, everyones happy.
Or atleast equally unhappy.
Still, the fact that the server crapped out is in no-one's hands but CCPs. When the Coalition swarmed LV, it came out in the Coalition's favour. This time, it came out quite well for BoB. Luck of the draw, I guess. --------
|
Pj peng
TEAMSTERS
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:30:00 -
[994]
Why was this 700 player limit placed on this occasion? When goons took LVs system... it didn't happen i think disallowing the coalitions support fleet in was stupid, and don't help the whole band of developers situation either.. making it look like you only create these ideas when needed or enforce these rules. i personally think you should refund all the capital ships of the coalition as you didn't allow there support in, making the fight bias and basicully eliminating half of one team instantly.
|
Helmut 314
Amarr J.H.E.N.R Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:31:00 -
[995]
I think the really burning question that deserves an answer from CCP is : What will you do when the defenders put 700 pilots into one system ?
As many have pointed out this goes way beyond BoB or any alliance, a hard limit like this is very exploitable and if the act of placing a pilot in a ship in a system automatically denies others that opportunity something needs to be changed.
What started all of this is the bad implementation of POS and sovereignty that is so important for any alliance that wants to hold space. Instead of rebuffing NPC:s, boosting missions and adding weapon supercharging, how about fixing the number one annoyance : Sovereignty and the crappy POS that come with it.
________________________________
Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson |
Khensu Blade
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:33:00 -
[996]
Originally by: End Yourself
Originally by: Khensu Blade
Originally by: Shadoo
Originally by: Khensu Blade What's a BoB pet? The only definition I can come up with from reading this thread is "Ally of BoB". ???
I'm guessing everyone has their own definition...
In this and other threads -- I've found the term "pet" used for someone who is living in another alliances sovereign space, sometimes paying rent, other times paying for the rent in common defence/etc activities.
An ally on the other hand lives in sovereign space of their own and works as part of a coalition of sovereign entities.
er another entity. Hence again the use of "pet" term by those who are market on the "official" map themselves.
I suppose "pet" term is less offensive anyway than what the terms for such entities were previously referred as (mining slave/b****)...
That's what I've picked up so far anyway... will continue to follow in awe .
I was basically trying to point out that the word has lost all meaning as it pertains to how people are trying to use it. There is no one qualifying factor that all of these so called "pets" fall under.(at least I doubt anyone can come up with said definition) The word is simply used now in an attempt to insult and belittle anyone who would dare be friends to BoB. I think people have a lot of misconceptions as to the relationships between BoB and some of their allys as well.
BoB internally refers/used to refer to entities like fallen souls, xelas... as pets.
The following is just an educated guess but i think at one point it was decided that to keep their pets happy it would be better to stop doing so. Alot of BoB members i know still call you pets outside of the public though. And almost all still consider you pets.
And there is no reason for BoB to treat entities that have proven to be unable to stand on their own feet as allies on a par, is there?
PS: Valorem is a nublar
So again, there is no definition... it is as I stated, used indiscriminately to categorize anyone who allys themselves with BoB. That's all I wanted to know.
I don't really understand your last paragraph. How is anyone allying with anyone any different?? We help them, they help us, it is the definition of ally.
|
Yggdrassil
STK Scientific Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:36:00 -
[997]
Originally by: Helmut 314 I think the really burning question that deserves an answer from CCP is : What will you do when the defenders put 700 pilots into one system ?
As many have pointed out this goes way beyond BoB or any alliance, a hard limit like this is very exploitable and if the act of placing a pilot in a ship in a system automatically denies others that opportunity something needs to be changed.
What started all of this is the bad implementation of POS and sovereignty that is so important for any alliance that wants to hold space. Instead of rebuffing NPC:s, boosting missions and adding weapon supercharging, how about fixing the number one annoyance : Sovereignty and the crappy POS that come with it.
The question is rather when the coalition will put 650 frigs and 50 dreads in a key bob system 1 min after downtime....
Yggdrassil |
PirateShampoo
Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:45:00 -
[998]
Originally by: Pj peng Why was this 700 player limit placed on this occasion? When goons took LVs system... it didn't happen i think disallowing the coalitions support fleet in was stupid, and don't help the whole band of developers situation either.. making it look like you only create these ideas when needed or enforce these rules. i personally think you should refund all the capital ships of the coalition as you didn't allow there support in, making the fight bias and basicully eliminating half of one team instantly.
As previously stated, JV1V never reached the cap, the only one who has said it did was liquid vision and he's as clueless as ever.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:47:00 -
[999]
Originally by: Pj peng Why was this 700 player limit placed on this occasion? When goons took LVs system... it didn't happen i think disallowing the coalitions support fleet in was stupid, and don't help the whole band of developers situation either.. making it look like you only create these ideas when needed or enforce these rules. i personally think you should refund all the capital ships of the coalition as you didn't allow there support in, making the fight bias and basicully eliminating half of one team instantly.
They should just put a cap of max 2 fleets in a 0.0 system that gets more than 400 ppl in it. After that, anyone not in those fleets, but in system, gets moved to their nearest station with their own corp office automatically, and the gates don't activate to anyone not in those fleets. GM control with a ban hammer to anyone exploiting the cap. Fixes the problem, fixes the lag. Bans xploiters. Perfect solution. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:49:00 -
[1000]
Originally by: Yggdrassil
The question is rather when the coalition will put 650 frigs and 50 dreads in a key bob system 1 min after downtime....
Heh, that'll certainly be a test worth trying. If that 700 person limit is miraculously lifted, then we'll know something funny is going on --------
|
|
darth solo
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:50:00 -
[1001]
ok, so all the good folks jump in the capital fleet, then the support is meant to follow, but it cant because the GMs have just made a 700 cap limit on the system without telling anyone?. leaving all you cap fleet outnumbered. lol u folks were seriously screwed over.
id be after ship replacements.
from now on all we will see happen is that the first to get 400 in system wins. because regardless of the oppositions numbers they will only be able to bring 300 to the fight due the cap, hillarious.
d solo. celes apoc new kilboard |
PirateShampoo
Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:56:00 -
[1002]
Originally by: darth solo ok, so all the good folks jump in the capital fleet, then the support is meant to follow, but it cant because the GMs have just made a 700 cap limit on the system without telling anyone?. leaving all you cap fleet outnumbered. lol u folks were seriously screwed over.
id be after ship replacements.
from now on all we will see happen is that the first to get 400 in system wins. because regardless of the oppositions numbers they will only be able to bring 300 to the fight due the cap, hillarious.
d solo.
I wish people would read the dev blogs, there was no sudden cap, the hard cap has been in place since it was announced 9 months ago in the dev blog. End of.
|
Boliknar
The Shadow Order Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:58:00 -
[1003]
Edited by: Boliknar on 30/03/2007 15:55:14
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Pj peng Why was this 700 player limit placed on this occasion? When goons took LVs system... it didn't happen i think disallowing the coalitions support fleet in was stupid, and don't help the whole band of developers situation either.. making it look like you only create these ideas when needed or enforce these rules. i personally think you should refund all the capital ships of the coalition as you didn't allow there support in, making the fight bias and basicully eliminating half of one team instantly.
They should just put a cap of max 2 fleets in a 0.0 system that gets more than 400 ppl in it. After that, anyone not in those fleets, but in system, gets moved to their nearest station with their own corp office automatically, and the gates don't activate to anyone not in those fleets. GM control with a ban hammer to anyone exploiting the cap. Fixes the problem, fixes the lag. Bans xploiters. Perfect solution.
I hate the whole newer gang system so didnt take the time to learn it... what is the maximun size a fleet can grow to and still pass down bounses. And as for banning people who "exploit" the cap. This would call for GMs making asumptions about a certain sides motives which would call for them to be totally subjective. Dont really know if we can count on that to be honest.
I mean how can a GM say with certainity that side "a" didnt really intend to take that system with 50 dreads and 650 shuttles. I know this is extreme but you get the idea.
|
Bailian Moxtain
Toys R Us
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 15:59:00 -
[1004]
omg
- made in Norway - |
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:00:00 -
[1005]
Originally by: PirateShampoo Edited by: PirateShampoo on 30/03/2007 15:56:16
Originally by: darth solo ok, so all the good folks jump in the capital fleet, then the support is meant to follow, but it cant because the GMs have just made a 700 cap limit on the system without telling anyone?. leaving all you cap fleet outnumbered. lol u folks were seriously screwed over.
id be after ship replacements.
from now on all we will see happen is that the first to get 400 in system wins. because regardless of the oppositions numbers they will only be able to bring 300 to the fight due the cap, hillarious.
d solo.
I wish people would read the dev blogs, there was no sudden cap, the hard cap has been in place since it was announced 9 months ago in the dev blog. End of.
Just in case anyone else missed it (and it seems like everyone did) Dev Blog - 700 Hard Cap
Been to jita lately? ---- Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] -Targoviste |
PirateShampoo
Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:04:00 -
[1006]
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
Originally by: PirateShampoo Edited by: PirateShampoo on 30/03/2007 15:56:16
Originally by: darth solo ok, so all the good folks jump in the capital fleet, then the support is meant to follow, but it cant because the GMs have just made a 700 cap limit on the system without telling anyone?. leaving all you cap fleet outnumbered. lol u folks were seriously screwed over.
id be after ship replacements.
from now on all we will see happen is that the first to get 400 in system wins. because regardless of the oppositions numbers they will only be able to bring 300 to the fight due the cap, hillarious.
d solo.
I wish people would read the dev blogs, there was no sudden cap, the hard cap has been in place since it was announced 9 months ago in the dev blog. End of.
Just in case anyone else missed it (and it seems like everyone did) Dev Blog - 700 Hard Cap
Been to jita lately?
Well maybe it was removed from Jita as there is no tatical advantage from blobbing Jita, this really is one for the developers now, I am dropping the subject and I am hoping (probably in vain) that everyone else will too.
|
Shinigami
Gallente Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:06:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: End Yourself
BoB internally refers/used to refer to entities like fallen souls, xelas... as pets.
The following is just an educated guess but i think at one point it was decided that to keep their pets happy it would be better to stop doing so. Alot of BoB members i know still call you pets outside of the public though. And almost all still consider you pets.
And there is no reason for BoB to treat entities that have proven to be unable to stand on their own feet as allies on a par, is there?
PS: Valorem is a nublar
That makes me wonder what the coalition's Russian overlords call them in private. --- Markly > why are taking me weldspai? Screenshots FPDoMS - Ore Relocation & Ship Removal Services
|
Exortius Amarrus
The Clearwater Society Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:08:00 -
[1008]
Do you really think that the coalition were the only ones trying to bridge, jump, cyno, or otherwise move more forces into the target system?
Had there been no system cap, the node would have crashe, and we'd all be *****ing about that.
I'd gladly pay twice as much a month to have such grand battles be playable.
GF ------------------------
|
Teinyhr
Minmatar Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:09:00 -
[1009]
You're all goddamn ridiculous. IMHO. If you want your ridiculously sized fleetbattles - go buy another ******* supercomputer for CCP to use and pay for its upkeep. Or go rewrite the code. Do something concrete, don't just whine and ***** "waa waa CCP is mean". Yeah, you're paying customers. Customer is always right. But not when it's a snottynosed kid whining why can't I have more when all have to get an equal share. -------------------
Originally by: Smagd Besides, specialization is for insects.
|
Ewa Quillam
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:23:00 -
[1010]
Originally by: Teinyhr You're all goddamn ridiculous. IMHO. If you want your ridiculously sized fleetbattles - go buy another ******* supercomputer for CCP to use and pay for its upkeep. Or go rewrite the code. Do something concrete, don't just whine and ***** "waa waa CCP is mean". Yeah, you're paying customers. Customer is always right. But not when it's a snottynosed kid whining why can't I have more when all have to get an equal share.
I would expect of them to make a study, maybe even make a model, a demo, test it, evaluate the solution in terms of cost and then propose it to us. If it's feaseble and the masses want it, why not? Implement it and increase the monthly fee.
If not, just say it will never gonna happen, but don't impose the system cap of N (700) all of the sudden, because we all know it didn't happen when LV lost it.
Who's whining? I'm ready to pay for it. It's something concrete that I'm doing, it's called "appel d'offre" (French).
|
|
End Yourself
Core Domination Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:44:00 -
[1011]
Edited by: End Yourself on 30/03/2007 16:40:51
Originally by: Khensu Blade So again, there is no definition... it is as I stated, used indiscriminately to categorize anyone who allys themselves with BoB. That's all I wanted to know.
Nope i have never heard any BoB member call their real allies pets. For example LV. As different people use the term there won't be the one definition. One indication of not beeing an ally on par of BoB can easily be spotted by having a look on Josh's map.
Originally by: Khensu Blade I don't really understand your last paragraph. How is anyone allying with anyone any different?? We help them, they help us, it is the definition of ally.
I will just give one example. When the last entity tried to take over the small flick of space we inhabit they "kindly offered" beeing "allies". Among a few other ridiculous demands was us following their standings. Never going to happen.
Ask yourself:
Are Fallen Souls autonomous or do you have to follow BoB standings? Does that make you an ally on par with bob?
--- Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:47:00 -
[1012]
Originally by: Boliknar
I hate the whole newer gang system so didnt take the time to learn it... what is the maximun size a fleet can grow to and still pass down bounses.
2 ppl in squad per lvl squad command, 1 squad in a wing per wing commander lvl, 1 wing per fleet command level, up to a maximum of 250 per fleet. Ok, just 24h shore leave passes then, but something to keep xploiters in line. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Ulric Denrai
Amarr Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:48:00 -
[1013]
This well help CCP link:Linkage
|
Khensu Blade
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:49:00 -
[1014]
Originally by: End Yourself
Originally by: Khensu Blade So again, there is no definition... it is as I stated, used indiscriminately to categorize anyone who allys themselves with BoB. That's all I wanted to know.
Nope i have never heard any BoB member call their real allies pets. For example LV. As different people use the term there won't be the one definition. One indication of not beeing an ally on par of BoB can easily be spotted by having a look on Josh's map.
Originally by: Khensu Blade I don't really understand your last paragraph. How is anyone allying with anyone any different?? We help them, they help us, it is the definition of ally.
I will just give one example. When the last entity tried to take over the small flick of space we inhabit they "kindly offered" beeing "allies". Among a few other ridiculous demands was us following their standings. Never going to happen.
Ask yourself:
Are Fallen Souls autonomous or do you have to follow BoB standings? Does that make you an ally on par with bob?
I'm not really concerned with what BoB calls their allys. I was only referring to how the term is used on these forums by "everyone else". I don't doubt that the term came from BoB themselves, and whether the term is still used by them today, I couldn't care less. Pet\Ally are completely interchangeable terms as far as I have seen on these forums.
As to your last example\question, I guess I can not comment specifically on the workings between our CEO, Mitch Taylor, and the BoB leadership. Is it not common practice to share standings between allys that occupy large swaths of space? That just seems like good organization to me.
I don't know what Josh's map is.
|
Cassius Hawkeye
Minmatar UK Corp FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:49:00 -
[1015]
So let me get this straight...
Not satisfied with their "moral" and also "tactical" victory, (and well done for taking out that POS - from an enemy), the coalition (or a select few representing the coalition) are now crying over a game mechanic which prevented them from completly and utterly 3000 man + blobbing a system (which would have almost certainly guaranteed multiple node crashes). Of course the game mechanics are there to prevent a node crashing right? We dont want nodes to crash right? No i didn't think so...
So - i ask the coalition "representatives" to please... pat yourselves on the back for a great victory. You sure did well - you expected to take losses and you did. Sounds like you accepted this was going to happen, so accept it.
But is this great victory enough? Or do you now feel the need to continue down the ridiculous notion that your opponents somehow fix the game against you.
You should all be absolutly over the moon with a stunning victory. Instead some of you (not all) are crying like the losing side. Will you ever be satisfied? Or is there something bothering you, despite this victory?
I really do not enjoy all this lag. For me the fun in this game is the nice 40/50/60 vs 40/50/60 battles FATAL and others in Fountain continue to have with D2 and others, especially over the past weeks. Sometimes we lose, sometimes we win, but after every fight everyone says GF, shows respect to each other, and goes home having enjoyed the game. Now that is EVE. Not all this BS right here.
None of this is meant to be smacking, or flaming. To be honest a battle report would have been nice and not all the wild chest beating, and hysterical crys of hax from both sides.
Just my opinion - no more from me
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies S.E.R.A
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:55:00 -
[1016]
Originally by: Ewa Quillam
I would expect of them to make a study, maybe even make a model, a demo, test it, evaluate the solution in terms of cost and then propose it to us. If it's feaseble and the masses want it, why not? Implement it and increase the monthly fee.
If not, just say it will never gonna happen, but don't impose the system cap of N (700) all of the sudden, because we all know it didn't happen when LV lost it.
Who's whining? I'm ready to pay for it. It's something concrete that I'm doing, it's called "appel d'offre" (French).
Mr. I-know-it-all, the system cap was to read in a dev blog 9 friggin months ago and isn't an invention of yesterday. Probably you should read them sometimes.
Regards
c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Wardog 1
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:57:00 -
[1017]
Originally by: Teinyhr You're all goddamn ridiculous. IMHO. If you want your ridiculously sized fleetbattles - go buy another ******* supercomputer for CCP to use and pay for its upkeep. Or go rewrite the code. Do something concrete, don't just whine and ***** "waa waa CCP is mean". Yeah, you're paying customers. Customer is always right. But not when it's a snottynosed kid whining why can't I have more when all have to get an equal share.
Thats possibly the most retarded post in this thread. CCP have stated that as a company there is currently no hardware available to upgrade the servers with. It was stated in a dev blog that any suibtable parts are used for upgrades almost as soon as they are released on the market, they cant buy anymore "supercomputers".
I'll not mention the re-writing the code comment, it speaks for itself.
But think about it, you tell everyone to stop whining. Well, what if no-one whined? Would CCP know what the people thought? If only 25 people posted in this thread complaining about the lag and population cap, nothing would be done about it, it would be dismissed as a few players rambling on.
While whining on the forums may not be the most... traditional way of getting your point accross, it does seem to work.
|
Ewa Quillam
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 16:58:00 -
[1018]
Originally by: Cassius Hawkeye But is this great victory enough? Or do you now feel the need to continue down the ridiculous notion that your opponents somehow fix the game against you.
I wish I could let this go, but personally I can't when I see the news. That's realy a shame this is alowed.
|
Trind2222
Amarr Dark-Rising Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 17:06:00 -
[1019]
Edited by: Trind2222 on 30/03/2007 17:11:53
Quote:
Ask yourself:
Are Fallen Souls autonomous or do you have to follow BoB standings? Does that make you an ally on par with bob?
We have good standing is our chose to helping bob like other alliance and we don't like goons or raizor so 1 more reasion helping bob and to get some good pvp.
And after jv1 i hate gons more i was there i wanted good fight but goons did not they did evry thin to take out the pos no mather the price so they crased the node. This why i think is good that the cpp did made only 700 cap in the system.
I have a perosnal feeling that some alliance whoud crach the node and kill the pos instead of fighting a good fight and lose some ship. I have read all post and d2 has been most profesonal in replyes (some others has good relyes) in this post and was loking for a good fight and there probley other alliances in colaison was looking for good fight to so i respekt to those who did.
|
Ewa Quillam
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 17:07:00 -
[1020]
Originally by: c0rn1
Originally by: Ewa Quillam
I would expect of them to make a study, maybe even make a model, a demo, test it, evaluate the solution in terms of cost and then propose it to us. If it's feaseble and the masses want it, why not? Implement it and increase the monthly fee.
If not, just say it will never gonna happen, but don't impose the system cap of N (700) all of the sudden, because we all know it didn't happen when LV lost it.
Who's whining? I'm ready to pay for it. It's something concrete that I'm doing, it's called "appel d'offre" (French).
Mr. I-know-it-all, the system cap was to read in a dev blog 9 friggin months ago and isn't an invention of yesterday. Probably you should read them sometimes.
Regards
c0rn1
Mr. I've-Read-It-All-9-Months-Ago... why did the LV cap building system crashed when there were 1000 peeps reported in it or trying to enter? I've read the blog dude, but you fail to understand my statement. The cap is the counter-node crasher, but it still did. So CCP "learned" the lesson and actually used it all of the sudden, nice going.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |