Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DARK SYCOPATA
Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 09:22:19 -
[1] - Quote
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?
PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 09:29:56 -
[2] - Quote
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?
PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.
When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.
The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.
The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.
After all we are not just players, we are customers.
Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
1277
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 09:36:10 -
[3] - Quote
CCP intervenes in the market continuously by your definition. Every time they rebalance a ship or module, adjust drop rates or spawn rates, put PLEX on sale - it all impacts the market.
All they had to do was announce refineries and moon material spiked - doubling in some cases and the feature probably won't enter the game for 6 months.
Change is a normal part of the game - adapt or die. |
Ragnar Danskjold
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 10:13:06 -
[4] - Quote
Yeah when they announced changes to faction battleships they tripled in price in five minutes. They don't try to manage the economy as much as people try to IRL, but they certainly do manage it. |
Skorpynekomimi
719
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 10:13:29 -
[5] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:DARK SYCOPATA wrote:This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?
PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.
This. It's just the same whining as when they nerf hisec mining, or when they killed off lowsec anything.
They're taking your PoSes, but you say nothing. They rebalanced your weapons, but you said nothing. Then they came for your free money, and you threw your toys out the pram and threatened to unsub your 17 accounts because they were taking away the free ISK you were selling for real money...
Economic PVP
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 10:29:03 -
[6] - Quote
what rule is that ccp always intervened on the market every change they make is an intervention on the market |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1672
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 10:31:46 -
[7] - Quote
Wow. That's a lot of wine going down the drain lately.
If you know a thing is way too good to stay true, just don't jump on it. At least not if you're adverse to change.
Remove standings and insurance.
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
34995
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 10:37:13 -
[8] - Quote
This is not the first nerf and not the last. There were bounties reduced in past times. Ships were nerfed. But I never have seen nerfhammer striking so hard on the ship that is used also in PvP, because it makes too much ISK in PvE.
As if it would be the only method to deal with bounties. I have seen nerfs to bounties in past time.
ߦçߦáߦç-Ç-ŠߦÿߦÇ-Çߦ¢ ߦÅ-ô ß¦Ç +óߦÇߦìߦç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ߦ¢ß¦Å ߦ¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sߦ¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò
ߦí-£ß¦ç-Çߦç +¬s ߦÇ+¦+ó-Ç-ŠߦäߦÅ+¦ß¦äߦÅ-Çߦà +óߦ£-Šߦí-£ß¦ç+¦ -ÅߦÅߦ£ +¦ß¦çߦçߦà -£+¬ß¦ì
ߦÅsߦÿ-Çߦç-Å =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1735
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 11:14:29 -
[9] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. I don't think you quite understand what the whining has been about.
It isn't about having income nerfed. It's about nerfing pvp in order to balance pve.
Nerf the PVE all they like. Implement some fighter dampeners in anomolies making Carriers less viable for ratting. Most of the 'whiners' are in favour of CCP making changes. Just not in favour of CCP nerfing the life out of conflict in the process.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
177
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 11:25:35 -
[10] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. I don't think you quite understand what the whining has been about. It isn't about having income nerfed. It's about nerfing pvp in order to balance pve. Nerf the PVE all they like. Implement some fighter dampeners in anomolies making Carriers less viable for ratting. Most of the 'whiners' are in favour of CCP making changes. Just not in favour of CCP nerfing the life out of conflict in the process. Yes some of the whining is about the reduction to PvP capability.
However most of the pointless dummy spits are over the fact the spoiled child of CCP (null sec) has been given a kick in the pants.
After years of ruination of the ability for any other area of the game to make a comparable income in favor of the spoiled child. The spoiled child just got a kick in the butt. Frankly from the other side of the fence it is as funny as hell to laugh at all those who have told others to adapt or die, or harden up to now be in the same boat.
If they had blocked carriers from being able to do anomalies and try to bring the massive amount of isk pouring in to a trickle, the whining would be the same.
The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.
After all we are not just players, we are customers.
Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
|
|
DARK SYCOPATA
Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 11:56:14 -
[11] - Quote
What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 12:12:54 -
[12] - Quote
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has.
They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill.
The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them.
The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.
After all we are not just players, we are customers.
Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
|
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
228
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 12:21:02 -
[13] - Quote
I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo...
Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble.
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
164
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 12:28:18 -
[14] - Quote
Blade Darth wrote:I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo...
Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble.
maybe capital escalations for anomalys like in C5 wormholes? But then still we have all these AFK ishtars that farm the hell out of these anomalys. In my opinion, this is the problem, not capital ratting in general.
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
160
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 12:39:27 -
[15] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:DARK SYCOPATA wrote:What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them.
Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators.
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 12:55:13 -
[16] - Quote
Coralas wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:DARK SYCOPATA wrote:What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators. It is not really negative feedback.
It is just supply and demand. Plex reaches a point where people choose to part with RL cash and people in game are willing to work to use in game currency to buy it.
The market equilibrium, where the higher the price the more likely people will fork out RL cash and the lower the price the more likely people are to buy it with in game currency is balanced. The unfortunate thing is that compared to years ago, the number of people with RL cash they are willing to spend is smaller compared to those with time to grind.
What it can buy in the game is irrelevant, especially as someone who is inexperienced who buys something flashy will watch it explode and then need more RL cash.
The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.
After all we are not just players, we are customers.
Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
160
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 13:48:22 -
[17] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Coralas wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:DARK SYCOPATA wrote:What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators. It is not really negative feedback. It is just supply and demand. Plex reaches a point where people choose to part with RL cash and people in game are willing to work to use in game currency to buy it. The market equilibrium, where the higher the price the more likely people will fork out RL cash and the lower the price the more likely people are to buy it with in game currency is balanced. The unfortunate thing is that compared to years ago, the number of people with RL cash they are willing to spend is smaller compared to those with time to grind. What it can buy in the game is irrelevant, especially as someone who is inexperienced who buys something flashy will watch it explode and then need more RL cash.
Nah, the price gain of plex is open ended, which ultimately requires CCP to treadmill new expensive plex projects onto the end of the game, otherwise plexes will march to the point where nobody needs to buy more than 1 ever for any project they might have.
Which is why serpentis capitals have unavoidably stupendous build costs, and why other faction capitals are not infinitely farmable, and why we have meta, t2 and faction capital modules now etc.
|
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
228
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 13:52:44 -
[18] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:Blade Darth wrote:I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo...
Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble. maybe capital escalations for anomalys like in C5 wormholes? But then still we have all these AFK ishtars that farm the hell out of these anomalys. In my opinion, this is the problem, not capital ratting in general. Not if those sites include dreads with 90km web/ neut and need for 2-3k dps.
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
5934
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 14:07:07 -
[19] - Quote
I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats?
I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true?
Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers.
The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null?
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed The Bastard Cartel
1724
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 15:55:34 -
[20] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats?
I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true?
Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers.
The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null?
I can't give you a number, but I do know for a fact that carriers do lose fighters in null anoms. Alliance mate of mine lost one just night.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16124
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 16:59:09 -
[21] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Wow. That's a lot of wine going down the drain lately.
If you know a thing is way too good to stay true, just don't jump on it. At least not if you're adverse to change.
That's why I stuck to my sub capitals (my mach and my rattlesnake) for ratting. I told my corp mates that I wasn't getting into carrier ratting even though I can fly carriers and could use tech 2 fighters. I said "you know they are going to nerf that right?".
History shows that if anything becomes so good that legions of people jump on board to do it, CCP WILL nerf it eventually for the good of the game.
It's not CCPs fault that soooo many people who play this game don't understand that. |
Vortexo VonBrenner
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
2921
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 17:07:44 -
[22] - Quote
Op, you are 100% correct!
This is outrageous!
This is too far!
Can I have your stuff, please?
EvE security zones in pictures
EvE quick reference pdf
EvE links
|
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
23
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 17:48:23 -
[23] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats?
I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true?
Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers.
The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null?
High-sec drone takes up to 25m3 and has price of 1 million top. Fighter has size of 1000m3 and price of 9mil for T2 version (using Dragonfly as example)
1 Haven brings like 30 million.
Now just imagine logistical nightmare and overall reasonability of doing Havens if you have considerable chance to lose 1-2 fighters even with perfect management? (Imagine that you can lose half of reward of lvl4 mission while doing it).
That's the problem with fighters: they are NOT expendable drones. |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
34999
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 18:05:52 -
[24] - Quote
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.
ߦçߦáߦç-Ç-ŠߦÿߦÇ-Çߦ¢ ߦÅ-ô ß¦Ç +óߦÇߦìߦç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ߦ¢ß¦Å ߦ¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sߦ¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò
ߦí-£ß¦ç-Çߦç +¬s ߦÇ+¦+ó-Ç-ŠߦäߦÅ+¦ß¦äߦÅ-Çߦà +óߦ£-Šߦí-£ß¦ç+¦ -ÅߦÅߦ£ +¦ß¦çߦçߦà -£+¬ß¦ì
ߦÅsߦÿ-Çߦç-Å =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
3450
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:21:22 -
[25] - Quote
Misleading title.
Signatures should be used responsibly...
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16139
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:28:13 -
[26] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.
Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.
Sorry, no. |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
35033
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:44:23 -
[27] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone.
Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...
ߦçߦáߦç-Ç-ŠߦÿߦÇ-Çߦ¢ ߦÅ-ô ß¦Ç +óߦÇߦìߦç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ߦ¢ß¦Å ߦ¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sߦ¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò
ߦí-£ß¦ç-Çߦç +¬s ߦÇ+¦+ó-Ç-ŠߦäߦÅ+¦ß¦äߦÅ-Çߦà +óߦ£-Šߦí-£ß¦ç+¦ -ÅߦÅߦ£ +¦ß¦çߦçߦà -£+¬ß¦ì
ߦÅsߦÿ-Çߦç-Å =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
5935
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:47:23 -
[28] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no.
N+1 is a b*tch.
"Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..." |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
5935
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:54:56 -
[29] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...
"Targetted" would be "you can run only x anomalies per IP and 24 hours period, with X being a variable threshold depending on how hot are bounties compared to the economy". That's how targetted would be, in any of a range of cases, from the more crude (literal IP caps) to the more subtle (blackboxed spawn rate which reacts to player activity and economy performance). Otherwise, as I said above, N+1 will kill you if it just grows large enough.
Hitting everyone with a swipe nerf could mean many things, but one is certain: TROUBLE. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
199
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:55:24 -
[30] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. N+1 is a b*tch. "Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..." The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.
It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null.
A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option.
We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer.
The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.
After all we are not just players, we are customers.
Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |