Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Garven Dreis
Count With Teddy Mercenaries Stay Calm Don't Panic
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:06:00 -
[91] - Quote
I think a large percentage of replies to this thread are coming from people who clearly have either a poor grasp on game mechanics, reality or did not read the OP In Manticore we Trust |
Joe Skellington
13th Tribe of Kobol Expeditionary
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:07:00 -
[92] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Do you also reclamate your own tears?
LOL, a bit butthurt imo. -á-á |\__/|-á -á/ @ @ \ -á-á -á( > -¦ < )-á -á`-+-+x-½-½-¦ -á-á / O \ |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
321
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:08:00 -
[93] - Quote
Garven Dreis wrote:I think a large percentage of replies to this thread are coming from people who clearly have either a poor grasp on game mechanics, reality or did not read the OP Which part in particular did you disagree with?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1249
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 15:08:00 -
[94] - Quote
What people fail to understand here is that this ISN'T about the boomerang ruling in itself. If you read the OP and quit trolling and playing internet badass for 30 seconds, you might actually gain some comprehension of what's at issue here.
This about CCP changing the rules to satisfy the whines of one group of players, at the expense of another group. This is about the GMs being "too busy" to enforce long-held rules on exploits, yet them adding more rules and then stating that they would make judgement calls based on "the spirit of the law" which puts a chilling effect on emergent gameplay.
Since some of you are being so deliberately dense, I'll give you some easy bullet points to read:
- The boomerang wasn't considered an exploit, now it is. It wasn't being used to evade Concord, only to delay the inevitable. The logs should show that people using this tactic always lost their ships in the end. Sounds like it's Working As Intended to me.
- The GMs previously said they were dropping the wardec exploit rules because they were overwhelmed with enforcement duties. Not so overwhelmed, it seems, to make new rules on which they must act.
- Possibly the most worrisome is the statements made by GMs that they intend to enforce rules based on arbitrary guidelines where people who innovate run the risk of crossing invisible lines. It gives the impression that the NEXT boomerang could get you in trouble retroactively: if they decide that what you did needs a new rule, you get in trouble for actions you took prior to the existence of the rule.
I'm tired of CCP's blatant favoritism toward the hapless, obstinate carebear who refuses to accept risk. That's not how Eve was when I came here, and it's not what's going to keep me interested in the game. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
267
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 15:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit. whine more.
Well, for instance this statement.
Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens.
Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'. You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing.
People need to learn to read.
Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'.
Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement?
Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out. |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 15:29:00 -
[96] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit. whine more. Well, for instance this statement. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens. Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'. You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing. People need to learn to read. Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'. Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement? Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates.
i am srry to say that but for your solution for freighter gank you need to play in team, after all it's a multiplayer game. aparently for carebear population anything involving more than 1 player it's bad and need to be nerfed; funny thing they say the griefers are sociopaths and without social life blah blah blah. i wonder who are the really sociopaths here?
|
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions Solyaris Chtonium
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit. whine more. Well, for instance this statement. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens. Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'. You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing. People need to learn to read. Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'. Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement? Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out.
Nerf the bruteforce gank, Buff the boomerang gank! |
The D1ngo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:You're kind of pathetic TBFH.
going to have to give you a like...nice summary of the OP's character....
@OP you seem to have put a lot of effort into finding a way to make people unsub.
Ganking is one thing and should be encouraged in order to preserve the "no where is safe" aspect of Eve. However, this seems to be a bit extreme.
Try going for a walk...stay away from other humans and small animals at first. As you become accustomed to society again try saying "hello" to some people. You will at first feel that everyone hates you but it isn't true. That s just the small person that you are inside sabotaging you. Ignore it.
Report back in 2 years and let us know how you did. |
Richard Aiel
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:27:00 -
[99] - Quote
So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1052586#post1052586-á thats why "EVE is dying" and you only have yourself to blame -á |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
244
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:15:00 -
[100] - Quote
OP should be banned for incredible stupidity in thinking that this wouldn't be ruled an exploit after he overused it. A comment from the Titan thread comes to mind... "like someone, when presented with a free bar, instead of using it sensibly, instead got smashed and headbutted the doorman, and is now surprised at the reaction".
The boomerang trick has been obvious for years. The introduction of the Tornado is irrelevant. It's always been obvious, that after ganking someone, you could warp to another belt and attempt to gank another e.g., miner before CONCORD arrives. It also been obvious that overuse of it would be ruled an exploit. Because you're gaining an advantage from delaying your death to CONCORD. |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
323
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:39:00 -
[101] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. Kind of understood was that the "ganker" would lose his/her stuff. Avoiding loosing stuff is an exploit. whine more. Well, for instance this statement. Avoiding Concord has always been an exploit. But warping away from the site of a gank was never considered 'avoiding Concord.' And it still isn't. (now you just can't shoot after warping) Further, warping away doesn't save your ship - Concord ALWAYS catches you and destroys you. You just shoot as much as you can before that inevitably happens. Interesting that you use the term 'stuff' very clever - CCP's policy is that you must lose your 'ship'. Not 'stuff'. You are allowed to keep your mods. Did you know that they often survive Concord death? Amazing. People need to learn to read. Oh, and for the other fellow saying that 'saving a freighter from the Boomerang/bump combination was 'impossible'. Answer: Tornados are GCC - anyone can engage them. Your solution: A single excorting Rifter with a point or two and a MWD. Tornados turn red, you point them, Concord showed up and the attack is thwarted. Easy as that. Care to revise your statement? Kind of a shame, as it could have been a new business opportunity for bored pilots: High-sec Freighter escorts. Cost of shipping goes up, but thats not a bad thing. Further, there might have been opportunities to 'bribe' the guards to look the other way. Interesting stuff that will never happen, because now we are back to the same old 'brute force' gank. To which there is NO countermeasure except cargo risk management and economics. Kind sad. There was a lot of potential for everyone, not just pirates. What was that sound? Player interaction potential being snuffed out. Oh.
I see.
You're an "internet spaceship lawyer". Well, when I did hulkageddon (exhumer is still my "prey of choice, I think) - we lost all our stuffs involved in the gank.
My understanding of the rule was "you gank - you lose your stuff involved in the gank". Ship/etc...
You just need to be told explicitly. It's guys like you that will tie this game down in red tape. Just because CCP didn't take you by the nose and say "this is it, x, y and z" doesn't mean it wasn't intended.
Reading comprehension indeed...
Said it before and I'll say it again:
"Whine more".
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
269
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 20:22:00 -
[102] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: Oh.
I see.
You're an "internet spaceship lawyer". Well, when I did hulkageddon (exhumer is still my "prey of choice, I think) - we lost all our stuffs involved in the gank.
My understanding of the rule was "you gank - you lose your stuff involved in the gank". Ship/etc...
You just need to be told explicitly. It's guys like you that will tie this game down in red tape. Just because CCP didn't take you by the nose and say "this is it, x, y and z" doesn't mean it wasn't intended.
Reading comprehension indeed...
Said it before and I'll say it again:
"Whine more".
No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. You just need average reasoning capability.
Your statement, "Gank and you lose your stuff" is both simplistic and inaccurate. CCP's policy specifically refers to "Your ship." When you buy a "ship" does it come with guns built in? "Ship" does not = "stuff".
I'll explain, in simple terms, as reasoning obviously isn't your strong suit.
A) Go gank something. B) Watch as your ship gets popped. C) Check your wreck. Are there mods there? D) Yes? Mods ARE there? Amazing. That means you aren't 'expected' to lose them at all.
Or do you consider looting your own wreck to be an exploit too?
Eh, I shouldn't have to explain this stuff. Its quite simple to understand.
But all you really want to do is throw insults like a child - along with about 90% of the other replies.
There are well reasoned opposing viewpoints out there, but yours isn't one of them. I am glad there are a few smart people out there that 'get it' as well - its a shame they aren't Devs or GMs. |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
188
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 21:18:00 -
[103] - Quote
ITT: people with terrible reading comprehension, posting before they let the words sink into their brains. People who suck at reading and thinking about what they read??? IN MY EVE FORUMS??
I agree with much of what Wilkus said regarding CCP bending to whine from carebears. IMO he was never exploiting with the Tornado boomerang, but that of course depends on your definition of "escaping" in "escaping CONCORD". He lost his ships every time, I do believe this counts as "did not escape CONCORD".
The problem people have with the Tornado Boomerang appears to be the fact that after the first gank the ship warps off to rinse and repeat until eventually and inevitably being popped by CONCORD (after all, we're not exploiting here, so the pop must happen). Let's say that such a Tornado killed a Hulk with that very first alpha. That Hulk would have died whether or not the Tornado warped off afterwards. The Tornado now goes to kill a second Hulk before CONCORD nabs it. That second Hulk would not have died to that same Tornado had the Tornado been unable to land nearby, lock the Hulk and fire at it. So, you will have one Hulk death however you spin it, whether the Boomerang is an "exploit" or not. If the Boomerang isn't possible, then only one Hulk dies. I suppose it's the ability to inflict multiple deaths via the Boomerang that's objectionable to some, seems unfair.
You know, it's actually possible to more or less ensure this outcome of "only one Hulk dies" even without CCP intervention. It goes something like this: have a buddy point the Tornado that just popped your friend's Hulk. Done. I know that training Propulsion Jamming and fitting points is only for very elite PvPers, and having a friendly tackler is just not something that's usually done by miners, therefore it's not something that should ever be considered a solution to the "problem" of warping Tornadoes. Changing mining tactics, IN MY EVE? Nah, let's instead just have CCP do all the work to solve all carebear woes.
Jesus, I've only suicided people a few times (presumably they were all bots), and I find the "solution" to this "problem" ridiculous. |
Cougars Scout
CANNOT UNDERSTAND NORMAL THINKING
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 21:21:00 -
[104] - Quote
Tons fo effort brosef; ever tried nullsec or something not so greasebally? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
324
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 22:12:00 -
[105] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:No, you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. You just need average reasoning capability. Which you obviously don't have.
This in *no* way makes "hi-sec" safer. it in *no* way impedes your ability to gank.
It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.
Obviously CCP doesn't agree with your *simplistic* definition of what concord is responsible for...
I'm out of here.
Your just another hi-sec care bear.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 23:12:00 -
[106] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: stuf
Don't like it? Cry more and louder. That seems to work pretty well for your types. We just act.
Try more thinking and less acting.
As I said in my previous post if you harass a player you can get a ban. Your intent is to make someones game play so bad that they decide to leave the game. You clearly made the statement that is IS personal.
The one who is crying here is you. Your tactic, which is a clear violating of the rules, got snuffed out. Your the one whining.
Kill a ship lose your ship is CCP's policy. Just because you can kill a ship, and another and another and another then lose your ship does not mean it follows the rules set by CCP. The only thing that has changed here that you exploited this so much that it finally came to CCP's attention and they snuffed it out.
As to swapping modules in an Orca, you can do that... but when CCP changes the game so that the orca picks up the GCC from your ganker, don't complain. You got to exploit that while it lasted
Going back to the "your types" comment. My battle Hulk pilot is 56/0. Never lost one to a ganker yet. Ashina has easily killed any TEARS that have attacked her bait ship when running missions. "My type" is the type that has spent the last 4 years training new players how to PvP so they can kick "your type" in the ass.
Go look up "Lofty scam". CCP congratulated him on finding a loophole to easily kill mission runners in high sec. Yet 6 months later they redid the code and the Lofty Scam was squashed. CCP is always changing interpretation of the rules to fit the intent of the rules. Now stop crying and go find yourself another exploit to take advantage of so we can see more tears from you when CCP squashes that one.
Have fun, I would say fly safe but you can't seem to PvP without losing a ship.... |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1253
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 23:24:00 -
[107] - Quote
Richard Aiel wrote:So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit? Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Im Super Gay
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 23:27:00 -
[108] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.
I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me? |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 00:02:00 -
[109] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking.
Are you some sort of professional idiot? |
Richard Aiel
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 00:03:00 -
[110] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Richard Aiel wrote:So Im curious, does the OP get banned given he showed knowledge of using that exploit and knowledge that it is an exploit? Only if you think a person should go to jail for committing a crime BEFORE it was a crime.
Well thats about to happen in Florida so why not?
An Im always suprised at the ppl qqing at ppl looking for loopholes... I thought Grey area WAS the object of the game?? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1052586#post1052586-á thats why "EVE is dying" and you only have yourself to blame -á |
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
325
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 00:58:00 -
[111] - Quote
Im Super Gay wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote: It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.
I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me?
Oh right, the point of dropping your fit in the Orca is to avoid ship loss.... Nice straw man - but it doesn't apply, OP even says you have time to drop your expensive mods...
So yeah, nice straw man.
Not.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
226
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 01:55:00 -
[112] - Quote
Watch.. Now that hes posted this hes going to have people stalking and waiting cloaked near his Orca just to bump the Nado out of range to use the fitting services.
Now that I think about it, would that even work? |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 09:25:00 -
[113] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:Watch.. Now that hes posted this hes going to have people stalking and waiting cloaked near his Orca just to bump the Nado out of range to use the fitting services.
Now that I think about it, would that even work?
Actually, they do - occasionally. Most miners have no idea how to scan, so they just suffer and die.
However, one time, had a close call where an interceptor showed up at my safespot while unfitting and tried to lock my pod.
That is why I suggest people fit a cloaking device to your Orca. Makes it impossible to find the Orca until you begin the actual unfitting process. Just to be sure, move safe-spots from time to time, and D-scan on occasion to look for probes.
Man, the carebears just keep crying and screaming 'exploit' and 'nerf!' - while accusing me of crying.
Actually, my purpose is to 'spread useful information to allow people to kill carebears (solo) at a cheaper cost'.
Stupid carebears, answer me this: You claim that the 'Boomerang' was an 'exploit'. You claim that GCC-unfitting gankships is an 'exploit'.
Fact: CCP policy is to hand out bans and warning for using exploits.
According to you: -I've 'exploited' in the past - and by currently using the 'Orca unfitting tactic' I still am. -I've openly posted about it on the forums, and GM's/DEVs commented on them. -I've informed lots of griefers, in detail with bullet points, how to do it themselves. -I've done significant damage to the mining population using these 'exploits' - something like 121 Billion. Solo. Over 3 months of intermittent play.
SO. WHY haven't I been banned or warned? I don't belong to any groups routinely accused of favoritism. (LOL - TEARS) I am not a secret CCP employee, like Vincent "T20".
Heres the answer:
Boomeranging wasn't an exploit until recently. Why? Because CCP's 'evasion' policy had to be REWORDED in order to classify it as an exploit. And Orca unfitting is NOT an exploit - otherwise GM's would have said so - or simply deleted the thread, like they did with the 'freighter kill' threads.
So, idiot carebears - why do you insist on using the term? Meta-game politics? Stupidity? Ignorant righteousness? Which?
Still it must be pretty good, though. Not only does CCP bend game mechanics to protect carebears - they Sharpie the rulebook as well. Maybe I am in the wrong business and should just start grinding Incursions or Lvl 4's like a moron.
|
Sobach
Fourth Circle Total Comfort
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 09:46:00 -
[114] - Quote
I'm no carebear, but I'll bite ;)
Herr Wilkus wrote:SO. WHY haven't I been banned or warned?
My guess would be that since it was a rather gray area you were operating in(unlike the moon exploits for example), it wouldn't have made sense to ban you for it, and unless you kept using the tactic after it was declared exploit, I don't see why you'd receive a warning or ban.
Herr Wilkus wrote:Boomeranging wasn't an exploit until recently. Why?
because it wasn't widely used or known until recently
Herr Wilkus wrote:Because CCP's 'evasion' policy had to be REWORDED in order to classify it as an exploit.
true, because they obviously did not foresee something like this being used to such an effect.
Herr Wilkus wrote:And Orca unfitting is NOT an exploit - otherwise GM's would have said so - or simply deleted the thread, like they did with the 'freighter kill' threads.
agreed, since it's part of current mechanics that have other uses as well. Whether they'll decide using it to avoid module losses in suicide ganks in the future remains to be seen however, as was hinted by some of the GM posts.
Herr Wilkus wrote:Still it must be pretty good, though. Not only does CCP bend game mechanics to protect carebears - they Sharpie the rulebook as well. Maybe I am in the wrong business and should just start grinding Incursions or Lvl 4's like a moron.
this I can't say I agree with. In my opinion it's simply a matter of balance. The boomerang simply tipped the scale too far in favor of the suicide gankers for CCP's liking (and frankly, far more so than at any time I can remember in the six years I've played eve), so they stepped in to put it back to where it was. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 10:12:00 -
[115] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it. srsly just stfu and gtfo.
|
Ender Karazaki
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 10:55:00 -
[116] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:[quote=JC Anderson]Stuff.
Lol what an ass, but kudos to him, he found a way to break the game. Although I would of gotten bored with all these easy kills. Is it just me or is ganking really, really, easy against mackinaws? I was ratting in a belt and 4 of them fell so quickly that if I blinked I would of missed it. The guy that was suppose to be looking after them must of got bored and started to watch a movie or something since he did nothing. |
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 17:37:00 -
[117] - Quote
You may play "badass-style" (suicide_gangking, pirate-lifestyle, jita-scamming etc. ) Mr. Wilkus but no player can be allowed to damage the econmic basic of a RealLife Softwarecompany. I think are you a missing a sense where you cross that line, or mabye just dont understand the difference between badass gamingstyle and criminal intentions. We are like avatar actors, .....we are allowed to play criminal on the stage but definatly not on the backstage of the theater.
Herr Wilkus wrote: ........ Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking. Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.
Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers.
What you do here is, trying blackmail CCP.
If they do what you dont want them to do (e.g.nerf the orca fitting service) you gonna try scaring away (new) suscribers ... and since you announce public (in the forums) you are encouraging others to do it too. Maybe the GM's act friendly and just ignore your statements, but dont take it for sure.
|
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
209
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 18:57:00 -
[118] - Quote
The only reason he is now going to focus on new players mining is because he has to pad his killboard somehow.
|
Kurnkuku
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 19:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Please CCP let me kill really big ships full of nice stuff that have no chance of escape so that I can get rich without putting much work in kthxbai!!
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
969
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 20:17:00 -
[120] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Im Super Gay wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote: It *does* impede your ability to avoid risk.
I missed the part where one of his ships survived after 15 min of GCC. Could you please point that out to me? Oh right, the point of dropping your fit in the Orca is to avoid ship loss.... Nice straw man - but it doesn't apply, OP even says you have time to drop your expensive mods... So yeah, nice straw man. Not.
It's up to CCP to make sort counter mechanics like Concord work as intended and are not the joke that actually is that many players say now for years. Actually, game mechanics like concord and everything around aggression CCP is doing related to High sec is obviously and strongly directed towards high sec haulers and miners ganking. If new players leave the game rather than high sec to low/null then it's up to CCP to do something about it, the game is what they've done of it, we just play in. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |