EVE Search - Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
imouttahere Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:02:00 - [1] People who abused the war dec system and get their own game nerfed then cry about it should check this out. It's also pretty handy for the people who got suicide ganking nerfed by abusing the insurance system and then complained Eve was going to the Carebears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier:_Elite_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat
imouttahere Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:31:00 - [2] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 25/08/2008 10:09:38 Originally by: imouttahere People who abused the war dec system and get their own game nerfed then cry about it should check this out. It's also pretty handy for the people who got suicide ganking nerfed by abusing the insurance system and then complained Eve was going to the Carebears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier:_Elite_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat 1) Get your own jokes 2) If you have to steal jokes, then please at least make them make sense. The two links were selected by myself to highlight the solitary nature of the mission runner in a MULTILPLAYER game. Solitary nature of a mission runner? What gives you the idea that people who run missions for Isk are afraid of any type of interaction with other people? Are you really that narrow minded to believe all mission runners are solo players? Are you really that much of a bigot? Originally by: Le Skunk I suggested frontier elite ii would be a better game to play (heaven knows the missions in that game were far superior to what eve offers) and of course there is no lag. The IRC would enable them to chat to their corpies. They therefore make no sense to suggest to a PVP player, whos entire game revolves around interaction with other players in a MULTIPLAYER game (strange that) Summary: Best you pipe down before you humiliate your forum alt even more SKUNK EDIT: Damn im good :) No sir. You are terrible. According to yourself and lot of hysterical people: If Eve continues on its current path it will be the same as Elite and there will be no PvP and no interaction. Which is why I used your link to a single player game with no PvP. Best pipe down before you get war decs nerfed. Again.
imouttahere	Posted - 2008.08.30 10:59:00 - [3] Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Dionisius Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Ships lost per person in 0.0 is a hell of a lot higher than ships lost per person in Empire. You should perhaps explain why mr.alt not just throw around random crap . I thought it was obvious . Ships are lost a lot more in 0.0 because of the total lack of artificial security. Every measure of security in 0.0 is achieved through the effort of players, and as we all know, players are prone to make mistakes. High sec is controlled by automated security. It is a system that doesn't make mistakes. Therefore, high sec = absolute security (if you aren't stupid), 0.0 = no security (if you're stupid). Rubbish. Open the map and set it to show ships lost in the last 24 hours.
imouttahere	Posted - 2008.08.30 11:08:00 - [4] Edited by: imouttahere on 30/08/2008 11:08:39 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: imouttahere Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Dionisius Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Ships lost per person in 0.0 is a hell of a lot higher than ships lost per person in Empire. You should perhaps explain why mr.alt not just throw around random crap . I thought it was obvious . Ships are lost a lot more in 0.0 because of the total lack of artificial security. Every measure of security in 0.0 is achieved through the effort of players, and as we all know, players are prone to make mistakes. High sec is controlled by automated security. It is a system that doesn't make mistakes. Therefore, high sec = absolute security (if you aren't stupid), 0.0 = no security (if you're stupid). Rubbish. Open the map and set it to show ships lost in the last 24 hours. Hahahaha. Wait, let me catch my breath, hahahahhaha. That statistic, no matter how much certain people on the forums would like to tell you, is completely worthless. It takes ages to update, and doesnt distinguish between people self destructing shuttles and a gatecamp. Gatecamps in hisec? This is new to me. Please explain. Also the majority of your 67 losses in 0.0/lowsec is likely due to PvPing not ratting or mining. So your figures are completely worthless imo.
imouttahere	Posted - 2008.08.30 11:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: imouttahere Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Dionisius Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Ships lost per person in 0.0 is a hell of a lot higher than ships lost per person in Empire. Rubbish. Open the map and set it to show ships lost in the last 24 hours. Bolded the important part. Majority of those are PvP losses. This thread is about making Isk safely in hisec compared to lowsec not the risk of losing a ship in PvP in 0.0.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.