Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:24:45 -
[91] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote: Because logic?
Try commiting any crimes in rl and tell me how fast you are able to come back to the same city / place or whatever doing your next crime?
You for sure wont come back there within 15 minutes, or even a day. That's for sure.
Exactly, you wont be back anytime soon. And if you commit even more crimes after you are released from jail from doing the first crime, then you will be punished even harder by the police where you freedom will be even more long gone.
RL? You mean like how flying in space is like flying in water? And never mind that it is a game and not RL? Is that the kind of logic you are referring too?
Just because everything is not completely RL does not mean that games do not inspire to be life-like. If they didnt, there would be no interest. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:28:51 -
[92] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Erich Einstein wrote:Trajan Unknown wrote:I am, by no means an expert on hi-sec "career gankers" or how the fu*ck they are called but to me this whole thing sounds stupid.
If people undock with **** that is worth ganking -> they might end up on the receiving end of the gankers. If people know how to haul their **** they wont.
Our logi guys hauling **** on a daily basis and there are no losses. I wonder how the **** is getting moved from low-sec/null-sec to Jita? :D My own hauler girl is shipping a lot of thing from and to Jita and I think I lost one (1) DST in three years. At the end of the day hi-sec ganking seems to me like all the other things people make money with. You take from the stupid, the inexperienced, the lazy ones. But the people who have enough brainjuice to learn from their mistakes won-Št fuel the ganking fleets. So why should CCP change anything? Learn from your mistakes and don-Št stay stupid and you won-Št lose your freighter. Additionally, as long as I see freighters autopiloting through hi-sec there are not enough gankers around. :D Pulling in 50bil a day from highsec ganks should not be an intended and permanent source of income. Go to null and battle another corp if you need those kinds of returns. Why aren't you talking to the idiots that make that income available? Because its not balanced...
If the idiots stop overfilling their freighters the income goes away. Duh. Cripes you're dumb.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:29:36 -
[93] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote: Because logic?
Try commiting any crimes in rl and tell me how fast you are able to come back to the same city / place or whatever doing your next crime?
You for sure wont come back there within 15 minutes, or even a day. That's for sure.
Exactly, you wont be back anytime soon. And if you commit even more crimes after you are released from jail from doing the first crime, then you will be punished even harder by the police where you freedom will be even more long gone.
RL? You mean like how flying in space is like flying in water? And never mind that it is a game and not RL? Is that the kind of logic you are referring too? Just because everything is not completely life-like does not mean that games do not inspire to be life-like.
The norms in game are different than the norms out of game. Trying to draw false equivalences is stupid. So stop being stupid.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
717
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:31:12 -
[94] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote: Because logic?
Try commiting any crimes in rl and tell me how fast you are able to come back to the same city / place or whatever doing your next crime?
You for sure wont come back there within 15 minutes, or even a day. That's for sure.
Exactly, you wont be back anytime soon. And if you commit even more crimes after you are released from jail from doing the first crime, then you will be punished even harder by the police where you freedom will be even more long gone.
RL? You mean like how flying in space is like flying in water? And never mind that it is a game and not RL? Is that the kind of logic you are referring too? So just because "it's a game", there should be no rl logic / elements in the game?
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:31:22 -
[95] - Quote
CCP should not be balancing player's actions. If a player takes on too much risk it is not CCP's problem, it is the players problem. You can't patch out stupid. Yet here we have the OP trying to patch out stupid.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:32:58 -
[96] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote: Because logic?
Try commiting any crimes in rl and tell me how fast you are able to come back to the same city / place or whatever doing your next crime?
You for sure wont come back there within 15 minutes, or even a day. That's for sure.
Exactly, you wont be back anytime soon. And if you commit even more crimes after you are released from jail from doing the first crime, then you will be punished even harder by the police where you freedom will be even more long gone.
RL? You mean like how flying in space is like flying in water? And never mind that it is a game and not RL? Is that the kind of logic you are referring too? So just because "it's a game", there should be no rl logic in the game?
No, of course not. Your logic is flawed because the norms in game are not the same as RL. Stealing in RL is not tolerated, yet there is virtually no in game mechanism to punish a corp thief or a scammer.
OMG!!! CCP!!! Fix scamming. Patch it out. It is not like RL.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:33:46 -
[97] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote: Because logic?
Try commiting any crimes in rl and tell me how fast you are able to come back to the same city / place or whatever doing your next crime?
You for sure wont come back there within 15 minutes, or even a day. That's for sure.
Exactly, you wont be back anytime soon. And if you commit even more crimes after you are released from jail from doing the first crime, then you will be punished even harder by the police where you freedom will be even more long gone.
RL? You mean like how flying in space is like flying in water? And never mind that it is a game and not RL? Is that the kind of logic you are referring too? Just because everything is not completely life-like does not mean that games do not inspire to be life-like. The norms in game are different than the norms out of game. Trying to draw false equivalences is stupid. So stop being stupid.
yes mom!! |
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
717
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:33:53 -
[98] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:CCP should not be balancing player's actions. If a player takes on too much risk it is not CCP's problem, it is the players problem. You can't patch out stupid. Yet here we have the OP trying to patch out stupid. CCP should balance the game where criminals is getting threated like criminals and not like the free pass to do gank fovever with no risk and no penalty as it is now.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Dom Arkaral
The Conference Elite CODE.
948
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:34:46 -
[99] - Quote
No. Also, HTFU
Kthxbai
Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.
Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER
Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome
CCL Loyalist
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:35:45 -
[100] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:CCP should not be balancing player's actions. If a player takes on too much risk it is not CCP's problem, it is the players problem. You can't patch out stupid. Yet here we have the OP trying to patch out stupid.
Who are you to say what CCP should be doing. CCP is a business and whatever makes gameplay more enjoyable for all is aloud to be changed. There are regular content / features patches for a reason. Its called reactive development. |
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
717
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:36:03 -
[101] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote:So just because "it's a game", there should be no rl logic in the game? No, of course not. Your logic is flawed because the norms in game are not the same as RL. Stealing in RL is not tolerated, yet there is virtually no in game mechanism to punish a corp thief or a scammer. OMG!!! CCP!!! Fix scamming. Patch it out. It is not like RL. If you find out who stole from you in EVE, there is basicly a million ways you can hunt that player down and make his ingame life miserable. So that excuse doesn't hold water.
Why?
You can't just say no without explaining why, can you?
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:36:33 -
[102] - Quote
Lul... another ganker. How's Kusion been. Do I need to start coming around again. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:39:31 -
[103] - Quote
This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jakara Dakara
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:40:37 -
[104] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Disclaimer: I understand that ganking is a part of the game and I am completely ok with that. I actually like that people in highsec are not completely protected.
Given that, CONCORD and the security status are completely useless against repeat offenders (mainly -5.0 and lower) who fleet gank every 15min - 24hours a day. Yeah, im talking about those staged up in Jita V - Moon 17 station. Ganking as a profession and source of income should come with the requirement of having to manage and repair your security status based on the system that you are ganking in.
To implement this i propose two changes:
First: CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly. Customs officials already behave this way on gates so it makes complete sense to expand this behavior to CONCORD's abilities. CONCORD should not be made to look like fools who can be manipulated.
Here is an example of when this second phase would kick in:
1.0 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-4.0 and lower) 0.9 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-5.0 and lower) 0.8 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-6.0 and lower) 0.7 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-7.0 and lower) 0.6 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-8.0 and lower) 0.5 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-9.0 and lower) 0.4 system and lower - not applicable
Second: To prevent alpha clones from continually being rolled and used as disposable gank toons, I propose that only omega pilots be allowed to set their safety to red, while alpha clones can only set their safety to yellow at most.
I feel that this will balance out the security and safety of highsec without damaging the ability to gank. This change will require gank fleets to put in an effort if they want to treat highsec like a free meal.
This would also bring more meaning to tags, where they can be used to repair status so that mission running is not the only option. Gankers would have to weigh tags cost against target profit to be effective.
CCPlease implement this or something similar so that repeat gank fleets can not freely stage and travel in highsec. If career criminals want to take advantage of major markets like jita and amarr, then they can use an alt or carrier service to get goods. No need for career criminals to even be allowed in highsec. That is what a security status is meant to control.
OK 1) You should try searching the forum, this post has been made, ad nauseam, again and again and again. 2) Concord is designed to react to a crime not prevent, CCP has not mentioned wanting to change this. 3) Concord gets regularly made a fool out of in the lore, why can't we have fun with the police too? 4) Having alpha safety locks has been mentioned in other threads as well, they don't want to take emergent game play away from them 5) Everything you mentioned would still severely damage the ability for dudes to gank, even worse than it has been already. 6) You've mentioned you steal the loot from a gank and profit off of it (making it less worthwhile for the gankers I might add), why would you want to remove that emergent gameplay/profit source from yourself? |
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
717
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:42:59 -
[105] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. Is lame excuses all you can give?
You don't even give any reasonable arguments or reasons why there shouldn't be a system in EVE like i mentioned. So why should we listen to you?
You said this is EVE yadda yadda yadda. Yes we know it's EVE, but EVE still has to be balanced both towards normal players AND the gankers.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:46:00 -
[106] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk.
You obviously dont know that goons sit in jita ganking whatever they can 24 hours a day. They are able to sit in 0.9 and 1.0 system stations with -10.0 security status. When they undock they dont even have to worry about faction police. They jump whereever they want and gank whatever they want without any negating gameplay effects whatsoever. All it takes it a mach bumper on each gate and the can stop and freighter that they desire and hold them as long as they desire. Bumpers do not go suspect and can even target the freighter so that it cant log out for 15min. Its a complete joke. |
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:48:10 -
[107] - Quote
Jakara Dakara wrote:Erich Einstein wrote:Disclaimer: I understand that ganking is a part of the game and I am completely ok with that. I actually like that people in highsec are not completely protected.
Given that, CONCORD and the security status are completely useless against repeat offenders (mainly -5.0 and lower) who fleet gank every 15min - 24hours a day. Yeah, im talking about those staged up in Jita V - Moon 17 station. Ganking as a profession and source of income should come with the requirement of having to manage and repair your security status based on the system that you are ganking in.
To implement this i propose two changes:
First: CONCORD should respond differently if a pilot's security status falls low enough in a particular highsec system. This second phase of aggression would consist of stations and jump gates instantly webbing and warp-disrupting while CONCORD moves in. This prevents serial criminals from freely moving through highsec and also prevent gank fleets from staging in highsec systems unless they control their security status correctly. Customs officials already behave this way on gates so it makes complete sense to expand this behavior to CONCORD's abilities. CONCORD should not be made to look like fools who can be manipulated.
Here is an example of when this second phase would kick in:
1.0 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-4.0 and lower) 0.9 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-5.0 and lower) 0.8 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-6.0 and lower) 0.7 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-7.0 and lower) 0.6 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-8.0 and lower) 0.5 system - CONCORD phase 2 (-9.0 and lower) 0.4 system and lower - not applicable
Second: To prevent alpha clones from continually being rolled and used as disposable gank toons, I propose that only omega pilots be allowed to set their safety to red, while alpha clones can only set their safety to yellow at most.
I feel that this will balance out the security and safety of highsec without damaging the ability to gank. This change will require gank fleets to put in an effort if they want to treat highsec like a free meal.
This would also bring more meaning to tags, where they can be used to repair status so that mission running is not the only option. Gankers would have to weigh tags cost against target profit to be effective.
CCPlease implement this or something similar so that repeat gank fleets can not freely stage and travel in highsec. If career criminals want to take advantage of major markets like jita and amarr, then they can use an alt or carrier service to get goods. No need for career criminals to even be allowed in highsec. That is what a security status is meant to control. OK 1) You should try searching the forum, this post has been made, ad nauseam, again and again and again. 2) Concord is designed to react to a crime not prevent, CCP has not mentioned wanting to change this. 3) Concord gets regularly made a fool out of in the lore, why can't we have fun with the police too? 4) Having alpha safety locks has been mentioned in other threads as well, they don't want to take emergent game play away from them 5) Everything you mentioned would still severely damage the ability for dudes to gank, even worse than it has been already. 6) You've mentioned you steal the loot from a gank and profit off of it (making it less worthwhile for the gankers I might add), why would you want to remove that emergent gameplay/profit source from yourself?
because its bad gameplay for a highsec system and I can make isk in any security status. I dont rely on ganks for income. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3773
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:50:05 -
[108] - Quote
Thats not a joke. Thats the game. Don't like it? Don't play.
Goons even announce this event ahead of time. If you are still getting ganked its your own dumb arse fault and ccp aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
717
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:51:46 -
[109] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Thats not a joke. Thats the game. Don't like it? Don't play.
Goons even announce this event ahead of time. If you are still getting ganked its your own dumb arse fault and ccp aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity. So basicly, the game can't be changed for the better, just because EVE is EVE.
So i have to stop playing EVE because EVE is EVE and it can't be changed is what you are saying?
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:51:57 -
[110] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Thats not a joke. Thats the game. Don't like it? Don't play.
Goons even announce this event ahead of time. If you are still getting ganked its your own dumb arse fault and ccp aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity.
Sorry... but I like the game and want to make it better so that more people will play. No good-old-boy clubs here trying to keep a feature that fits their gameplay style and allows them to rake in mountain of plex. Pay your subscriptions or earn them properly like everyone else. That is why we have a highsec, lowsec, and nullsec. I agree with ganking, but it is out of hand at the moment. |
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 01:56:32 -
[111] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Thats not a joke. Thats the game. Don't like it? Don't play.
Goons even announce this event ahead of time. If you are still getting ganked its your own dumb arse fault and ccp aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity.
And btw... this has nothing to do with the burn Jita event. Goons do this all day, everyday, all year long. I already told you where they are stationed... go see for yourself. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:02:15 -
[112] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote:So just because "it's a game", there should be no rl logic in the game? No, of course not. Your logic is flawed because the norms in game are not the same as RL. Stealing in RL is not tolerated, yet there is virtually no in game mechanism to punish a corp thief or a scammer. OMG!!! CCP!!! Fix scamming. Patch it out. It is not like RL. If you find out who stole from you in EVE, there is basicly a million ways you can hunt that player down and make his ingame life miserable. So that excuse doesn't hold water
Please. You can say the same thing to those who suicide gank. But you aren't you want CCP to punish them. And you talk of logic.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3774
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:03:33 -
[113] - Quote
If you want to make the game better you'd be asking for buffs to ganking. Increases rewards for smart players. Penalises the dumb and lazy. And i mean for haulers and miners when i say that.
But no. Just another carebear that doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Wants the game to change so he doesn't have to think.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:04:46 -
[114] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. Is lame excuses all you can give? You don't even give any reasonable arguments or reasons why there shouldn't be a system in EVE like i mentioned. So why should we listen to you? You said this is EVE yadda yadda yadda. Yes we know it's EVE, but EVE still has to be balanced both towards normal players AND the gankers.
I keep repeating it hoping you'll understand the point. The freighter pilot creates the ganking opportunity by overloading his freighter. You keep calling it lame because you can't logically refute the point.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:08:05 -
[115] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. You obviously dont know that goons sit in jita ganking whatever they can 24 hours a day. They are able to sit in 0.9 and 1.0 system stations with -10.0 security status. When they undock they dont even have to worry about faction police. They jump whereever they want and gank whatever they want without any negating gameplay effects whatsoever. All it takes is a mach bumper on each gate and they can stop any freighter that they desire and hold them as long as they desire. Bumpers do not go suspect and can even target the freighter so that it cant log out for 15min. Its a complete joke.
Aside from Burn events Goons gank for profit as a general rule. The profit is created by the freighter pilot overloading his freighter.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:09:38 -
[116] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:If you want to make the game better you'd be asking for buffs to ganking. Increases rewards for smart players. Penalises the dumb and lazy. And i mean for haulers and miners when i say that.
But no. Just another carebear that doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Wants the game to change so he doesn't have to think.
You must be on a troll fest or something. That or you are just really dumb... |
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:10:41 -
[117] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. Is lame excuses all you can give? You don't even give any reasonable arguments or reasons why there shouldn't be a system in EVE like i mentioned. So why should we listen to you? You said this is EVE yadda yadda yadda. Yes we know it's EVE, but EVE still has to be balanced both towards normal players AND the gankers. I keep repeating it hoping you'll understand the point. The freighter pilot creates the ganking opportunity by overloading his freighter. You keep calling it lame because you can't logically refute the point.
Have you never heard of "agree to disagree." You dont need to keep repeating your point. We get it. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5990
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:17:02 -
[118] - Quote
Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. Is lame excuses all you can give? You don't even give any reasonable arguments or reasons why there shouldn't be a system in EVE like i mentioned. So why should we listen to you? You said this is EVE yadda yadda yadda. Yes we know it's EVE, but EVE still has to be balanced both towards normal players AND the gankers. I keep repeating it hoping you'll understand the point. The freighter pilot creates the ganking opportunity by overloading his freighter. You keep calling it lame because you can't logically refute the point. Have you never heard of "agree to disagree." You dont need to keep repeating your point. We get it.
You get it. Then why do you have a problem with ganking? The player getting ganked had the power to avoid the gank he chose not too. Why do you want to shield such players from the consequences of their foolishness.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:20:25 -
[119] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Erich Einstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:NightmareX wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:This is not Candy Land, this is EVE. If you take on too much risk, you bear the consequences. The OP is just flat out wrong on the basic nature of the game. Don't take on more risk than you can tolerate. That's it. A freighter being suicide ganked generally the player has taken on too much risk. Is lame excuses all you can give? You don't even give any reasonable arguments or reasons why there shouldn't be a system in EVE like i mentioned. So why should we listen to you? You said this is EVE yadda yadda yadda. Yes we know it's EVE, but EVE still has to be balanced both towards normal players AND the gankers. I keep repeating it hoping you'll understand the point. The freighter pilot creates the ganking opportunity by overloading his freighter. You keep calling it lame because you can't logically refute the point. Have you never heard of "agree to disagree." You dont need to keep repeating your point. We get it. You get it. Then why do you have a problem with ganking? The player getting ganked had the power to avoid the gank he chose not too. Why do you want to shield such players from the consequences of their foolishness.
Officially ignore for trolling |
Janeos
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 02:52:00 -
[120] - Quote
I haven't seen a vein of salt this rich in YEARS. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |