Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 05:15:00 -
[31]
If you cant kill a target in 120+ seconds of "combat", then you are utterly and completely pvp pathetic and dont deserve the kill.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 05:21:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: ghosttr I think self destruct should be a legitimate tactic, -as long as the person self destructing get no insurance payout for his loss.
Self destructing and keeping the insurance is stupid, its like burning down your own house for the insurance money, the insurance company wouldn't allow that would they
This is probably the best idea.
Sounds good, while they're putting conditions on insurance payouts, none for being concorded either.
Not many insurance companies will pay you if you lose stuff to wars either...
EvE "insurance" is nothing like RL insurance.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 05:22:00 -
[33]
Boo Fukin Hoo. Someone self destructed and denied me a kill mail to fap to whilst I brag about it to my corp mates on vent. Sucks to be you eh?
Originally by: Nice Guy This means that the writer epicaly fails at english.
Irony. So delicious. |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 05:52:00 -
[34]
*activates self-destruct when his hauler gets nabbed, and clicks "Trash it" with all cargo contents highlighted if defeat is inevitable*
Improve Market Competition! |
Lady Sinistrel
Gallente Ruag Buadh
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 06:05:00 -
[35]
Quote: I don't think anyone can seriously argue that self destructing in combat, so as to deprive your assailaints of a killmail, is anything other than lame.
Wholeheartedly agree, un-sportsmanlike and childish
|
Private Snowball
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 06:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Sha4d13 I don't think anyone can seriously argue that self destructing in combat, so as to deprive your assailaints of a killmail, is anything other than lame.
There can be no reason other than to deprive them of a killmail, to self destruct in mid combat.
That being the case, is there any good reason why a warp disruptor (of whatever kind) should not interfere with the electronics which operate the self destruct sequence? i.e. You can't initiate self destruct whilst scrambled.
Thoughts?
Lame? No thats not lame. Lame is when your gank of 14 +1 carrier =15 warp to a gate with 30 BSes to enguage in a quite fair fight, then the hostles Titan bridge 40 more battleships. so the carrier self destructed.. he even said he didnt want to but when you bridge 40 more bses to take out 1 carrier 14 support thats already vastly outnumberd its Lamer.. if thats a word case and point he did it because of the lame tactic they used and CCPs idea to let a titan bridge ships thru without putting itself in harms way
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 06:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Lady Sinistrel
Quote: I don't think anyone can seriously argue that self destructing in combat, so as to deprive your assailaints of a killmail, is anything other than lame.
Wholeheartedly agree, un-sportsmanlike and childish
LOL!
Point me to these unwritten rules please. I never realised the element of surprise in order to facilitate a quick escape in your pod whilst denying the enemy a ship as reward was "unsportsmanlike".
Improve Market Competition! |
Ping Li
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 07:30:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Private Snowball
Originally by: Sha4d13 I don't think anyone can seriously argue that self destructing in combat, so as to deprive your assailaints of a killmail, is anything other than lame.
There can be no reason other than to deprive them of a killmail, to self destruct in mid combat.
That being the case, is there any good reason why a warp disruptor (of whatever kind) should not interfere with the electronics which operate the self destruct sequence? i.e. You can't initiate self destruct whilst scrambled.
Thoughts?
Lame? No thats not lame. Lame is when your gank of 14 +1 carrier =15 warp to a gate with 30 BSes to enguage in a quite fair fight, then the hostles Titan bridge 40 more battleships. so the carrier self destructed.. he even said he didnt want to but when you bridge 40 more bses to take out 1 carrier 14 support thats already vastly outnumberd its Lamer.. if thats a word case and point he did it because of the lame tactic they used and CCPs idea to let a titan bridge ships thru without putting itself in harms way
I never understood this, if you have quite a fair fight it means both sides have a good chance to win. So you know you have 50% chance to loose while you also know you can field reinforcements and have a sure win. Why is it lame to do so ? I agree it takes the fun away, but it also makes you win on the battlefield without losses.
And about the SD, i think you should not get insurance if you do it. That way if you SD you make sure the enemy doesn't get a killmail and items, but it will also cost you something. Furthermore i think the SD itself should be a big smartbomb , damaging everything in it's area.
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 07:34:00 -
[39]
I keep trying to read the OP, but all I get is, "BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW."
Originally by: Frug Your reputation has been entirely redeemed in my eyes. I now want your babies.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |