Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 18:55:00 -
[91]
Originally by: celtibero i have been watching this thread for some time now and quite frankly i do not think you (the op) are correct.
Let us start with I-Stabbed eagle: can u demonstrate that that ship takes less than 2.5s to align and warp ? I do not suppose so... it warps very fast indeed but at the cost of having his signatura radius slightly increased (making him easier to lock), BUT you used a ceptor, ceptor can have many advantages but when you are gate camping u know that you might not be in range to warp scramble as soon as u finish lock, thus the need to make aproach lossing valuable seconds etc etc.
Had u used a Keres i would have considered it a valid test, why ? because it the proper ship for that job, sitting on top of the gate u always have range to warp scramble (with lvl 4 on EAS ofc).
if u stop to think a moment a keres with double sensor booster and scan resolution scripts takes about 0.6s to lock a I-Stabbed eagle, meaning its very possible u can stop him on his tracks, ofc that does not guarantee that u can still stop him or kill him, but its a start.
and now i am hoping you arent saying "but i stil have to click the lock button and activate the module 1st... that way i loose alot of time thus making it imposible to lock him down so fast", i really hope u are not saying that, if u are just try these simple steps:
1- remove auto-lock 2- activate the module 3- press ctrl 4- when target jumps the gate and appears on overview left mouse click on him
much faster now ? hope so
as for the BS: the guy didnt want to be stopped, its a game mechanic, not a bug or an weird ccp goof, its what it is, that ships combat abilities are compromised with that fitting, and the only things he wants to do is move from point A to point B with that ship, just learn to respect that.
The issue is not that the interceptor is not within 24KM to land the point, so your Keres argument is moot. The issue is that you cannot lock and activate the module *before* the ship warps off. And explain how a sensor boosted interceptor not being able to catch a *cruiser* makes sense?
As for the demonstration, it was demonstrated, view the video above.
I believe that a standard cruiser shouldn't be locking an i-stabbed cruiser, but when a sensor boosted Interceptor, whose role is to Intercept, cannot tackle ships of a larger class, something is unbalanced. It's a fine balance, but with the current mechanics coupled with lag, there definitely seems to be a problem.
Now considering that a lot of pew-pew occurs on gates in EVE due to the nature of EVE, this is a huge change. Less so for 0.0 where you have dictors and bubbles, but this impact is definitely large for lowsec. Especially when you consider that having a uber sensor boosted Interceptor would probably only last 2 seconds before popping to gate gun fire...
And as for your final point of "respect that". What you are talking about is consensual PvP, which the developers have made the point that EVE *isn't*. There is nothing to respect about that scenario, it's unbalanced that a BS can warp through lowsec with immunity. Obviously I don't believe he should die at the first camp, but being immune is also not the right balance.
|
Wesley Baird
BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 20:34:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Wesley Baird on 26/11/2008 20:35:14 I agree with the problem the Op has pointed out, although I think I disagree with the proposed solution. The patch as a whole is completely anti-small gang/solo pvp.
Its funny most of those trolling this thread have killed virtually no one in game, only been victims of boat violence...
CCP is forcing gangs of a certain size to be successful (I know the odd small gang still enjoys success fighting complete noobs, but not predictably) especially in 0.0 As for low-sec, it will become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. A corp cannot make money on low-sec unless it uses Smart-bombing gangs on major routes (which are few and very far between).
Low-Sec will soon only be used by major alliances as staging points for their 0.0 operations with the odd pirate corp who spends a good deal of their time in 0.0 Bears won't live in low-sec no matter how barren it is, and a pirate corp cannot sustain itself given current mechanics unless they have carebear alts or alliance membership where they go to earn iskers...can't even say pilots will go to low-sec for some piratey fun...
I hope the issue is resolved Captain Thunk, but there is no fix in sight from what I have seen...sadly...
|
Ricky Baby
Atomic Battle Penguins The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 23:02:00 -
[93]
Lets take a step back here, forget everything about i-stabs/gatecamps lowsec v 0.0 v highsec.
# # # # THE PROBLEM # # # # Ships of any given class cannot lock ships of a same class or lower even with sensor boosters fitted. Interceptors struggle to lock NON agility fitted cruisers without a sensor booster.
# # # # WHY IT EXISTS # # # # The agility changes coupled with background latency in internet based systems makes any ship with sub 3 second warp time is for all intents and purposes impossible to lock and scramble.
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 03:02:00 -
[94]
I've taken the liberty of quoting you in the original post Ricky, as you said what I wanted to say much more simply and precisely.
@ Wesley Baird. I agree, I don't have any proposed solution myself other than perhaps short term elasterplasts such as a reduction of lock times for some ships - make no mistake though, this doesn't address the underlying problem that there is a threshold where ships that align in under a certain time cannot be caught no matter what you fit or do. Previously this group has largely been limited to shuttles and capsules - which is fine, most people don't have a problem with that - now however that group is significantly larger. But I do strongly believe that minds much better than mine should look at a longterm fix as it represents a fundamental problem to one of the most fundamental aspects of the game.
I should point out that all talk about i-stabbed ships hasn't been a complaint about i-stabs, it's just been an easy avenue to illustrate to people that the underlying base align speed has been significantly buffed. At the moment I don't actually give a damn about i-stabs. Another misconception is that I'm not actually a gate camper, the most I'd ever wait at a gate would be around 5 minutes if I have some reason to believe a war target will be coming through shortly, I do spend a lot of time chasing after targets though which is where I have encountered the problem with align times. Before anyone says it, there is no where to go in order to adapt - people are immune, it's that simple.
This is the latest step in a long line that is making several ingame professions unviable. Its a bit weird that if you befriend someone, steal everything they own ingame and make a forum post to gloat about it you're hailed as a hero, yet start talking about a perceived problem with the fundamental mechanics of the game and only 10 or so people actually notice - though it has to be said some of them have been very constructive in their replies.
Captain Thunk.
|
Dirt McGirtt
Captain Morgan Society Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 11:14:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Ricky Baby Lets take a step back here, forget everything about i-stabs/gatecamps lowsec v 0.0 v highsec.
# # # # THE PROBLEM # # # # Ships of any given class cannot lock ships of a same class or lower even with sensor boosters fitted. Interceptors struggle to lock NON agility fitted cruisers without a sensor booster.
# # # # WHY IT EXISTS # # # # The agility changes coupled with background latency in internet based systems makes any ship with sub 3 second warp time is for all intents and purposes impossible to lock and scramble.
This sums it up perfectly. I can only hope some of the dev's might go try this out with a couple of ships in space to see how bad it is, =( I have no idea what would be a good solution, other than redoing all ships agility, which would probably be a nightmare for CCP.
|
H Zub
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 12:04:00 -
[96]
The real question to me is the following.
Did CCP indend the end result or not?
I would not be surprised if it's been their long term goal to make empire bulletproof and have pvp in huge fleets only. EG increase customer base by making eve a safer place with consensual PvP as the indirect result.
Me parrot eat stabs for breakfast |
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 14:15:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Raimo on 27/11/2008 14:15:21 I would love a dev comment on this. I'm an user of the much talked about medium blasters, I still do kills with them however broken they might be but this tackling change is a seriously gamestyle crippling issue.
Also for the record the new region border gates are horribly large, making life even more miserable.
(But about med Blasters, I need seriously wacky blaster ship fits to make it work because of the stupidity that is the new scrambler... They would all need 1-2 more mids really... But that is a separate discussion which I guess we lost already. I so wish they would just buff ABs, go back a little on the web nerf and return the scrambler to what it was. Oh well...)
|
TEK9
Caldari Captain Morgan Society Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 17:37:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Dave Tehsulei
Originally by: Vaal Erit You guys are getting off topic. This is not an istab whine.
Pre-QR: Cerb align time (evasive V, spaceship V no implants): 6.3s Post-QR: Cerb align time (evasive V, spaceship V no implants): 4.4s
Time for a cerb (signature analysis V) to lock a cerb with no extenders/shield rigs: 4.3s Fact is that without any modules, what you could catch pre-QR, you cannot catch post-QR.
Also there is a lag time when locking a target, say .5s-1.0s or so when your target decloaks and even if you spam lock target, it takes some time for you to start locking. Then when you finally lock, your modules take another half a second or so to activate.
Some ships in QR have been give 2 free inertia stabilizer modules and lock times have not been compensated. I believe CCP is overlooking this as locking times have not been changed for as long as I have been playing.
To be fair, you have never been able to catch nano-hacs in low security gate camps (at least not competent hac pilots, they just nano off the gate) I am not complaining about catching istab'd ships, but not being able to catch a tanked cruiser in a cruiser is ridiculous. I don't want to blob with HICs/Lachs/geddons but it seems tlike that is what is needed.
This
The real problem is with base agility before modules, implants or gang bonus' are involved. If people want to fit 4 istabs, cloaks and mwds on everything to make sure they cant possibly be tackled in high sec then by all means but at least give us (back)the ability to tackle ships of equal size that aren't fitting travel set-ups.
I mean before nanos became the FOTM, cruisers could tackle other cruisers without the need of sensor boosting. Once a long time ago you used to be able to catch interceptors jumping through gates if you had a sensor booster. Nano changes and now the agility boost have taken us a long way from this. I can't be the only person that remembers when eve used to be like this ? It was better.
Base agility is just too high for a lot of ships now, without a change to scan resolution to match the changes this was bound to make tackling any class much harder, I think it was an oversight by the devs when implementing the agility/speed changes.
Can anyone provide a solid argument against boosting scan resolution enough so we can lock and tackle things as we used to? Prior to nano setups and the agility boost. I cant think of a reason this would hurt the pvp or carebear population.
You would still be able to escape gate camps and run away from any fight if you fit your ship properly, ie.. istabs and wc stabs. However if you aren't fit for safe travel and you jump into another ship of the same class it should be reasonable to assume he can lock AND scramble you before you warp away. This applies to most but not all classes in my view, one exception being interceptors, having always been difficult to tackle at a gate, they are scouts they should be hard to catch.
This and....this
I would be grateful if a CCP Developer would be polite enough to comment on this thread and let us know whether their intention really was to make Eve a consensual PVP game (by stealth)or was it simply an 'accident'? More importantly will they now address the issue?
Like Dave, I too remember actually being able to catch interceptors and other frigs jumping through gates (and they could catch me too!!) and yes, it was a lot more fun.
|
celtibero
Caldari The Huns Tribal Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:00:00 -
[99]
Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:06:31 Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:04:14
Originally by: SecHaul
The issue is not that the interceptor is not within 24KM to land the point, so your Keres argument is moot. The issue is that you cannot lock and activate the module *before* the ship warps off. And explain how a sensor boosted interceptor not being able to catch a *cruiser* makes sense?
As for the demonstration, it was demonstrated, view the video above.
I believe that a standard cruiser shouldn't be locking an i-stabbed cruiser, but when a sensor boosted Interceptor, whose role is to Intercept, cannot tackle ships of a larger class, something is unbalanced. It's a fine balance, but with the current mechanics coupled with lag, there definitely seems to be a problem.
Now considering that a lot of pew-pew occurs on gates in EVE due to the nature of EVE, this is a huge change. Less so for 0.0 where you have dictors and bubbles, but this impact is definitely large for lowsec. Especially when you consider that having a uber sensor boosted Interceptor would probably only last 2 seconds before popping to gate gun fire...
And as for your final point of "respect that". What you are talking about is consensual PvP, which the developers have made the point that EVE *isn't*. There is nothing to respect about that scenario, it's unbalanced that a BS can warp through lowsec with immunity. Obviously I don't believe he should die at the first camp, but being immune is also not the right balance.
Demonstrated, confirmed and i also checked it under lag in sisi, it really is (after testing i would say impossible) very hard to catch them, point taken then.
but as for consensual PvP, where did I state that PvP in all of eve is consensual ? in 0.0 u can stop the ships.... and the players dont need to give any consent
But there is another issue, let us take a Megathron, assume a pilot has that ship i-stabbed, altough it alligns in 5.8s it has lost 1/2 of its low slots, no idea if its possible to scramble it before warping, but lets assume that the guy is cruising looking for easy targets and fleeing if he sees he has no chance (u can still bait him ofc), that ship has half of either its firepower (no damage mods) or tank compromised, same is true for all ships, u have to give in on something, even on the eagle, that ship can boast a formidable tank for its class, i-stab her and u loose the vast majority of that advantage 8altough it may be the ship that suffers less from that issue).
So point his, what is that player gonna do with that i-stabbed ship ? he can try and look for lone tagets etc etcbut at the oeril of his fitting not being as efficient as it could be for PvP, he can travel from point A to B, refit for PvP adn go PvPing, he can store it in his hangar at the destination point and leave it there to dry....
PvP its not consensual as it his, as it seems its nearly impossible to pick a fight without someone that doesnt want to, outside 0.0, but before milia the same held true (and no, wars was no way to get it done, there were and are million ways to avoid any major inconvenients due to wars, thus its not by war deccing that i would be forced to PvP if i didnt want to), maybe not in unsafe space, but ccp should quote on that. nothing much (of importance) has changed to me.
despite this, it would still be interesting to get a someone from ccp to say if it was intended of its a side effect.
PS: edited for english and clarification.
|
Wesley Baird
BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:18:00 -
[100]
Originally by: celtibero stuff
You don't need to fill your lows with I-stabs, 1 I-stab is enough...so you can have your cake and eat it too...
|
|
celtibero
Caldari The Huns Tribal Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:22:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: celtibero stuff
You don't need to fill your lows with I-stabs, 1 I-stab is enough...so you can have your cake and eat it too...
1 i-stab ? and what ? normal fitting in the remaining ? gives u what ? 12s allign time ? plenty of time to stop someone.... unless u put wcs....
|
celtibero
Caldari The Huns Tribal Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:35:00 -
[102]
Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:36:21 Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:35:11 btw... what about shuttles ? how do u stop them outside 0.0 ? if PvP should be increasingly non-consensual.... shouldnt they be fixed too ?!?
how did u guys stopped shuttles from going anywhere in empire (if the pilot was not using AP in unsafe space) ?
Or is that u consider that moving a ship from point A to point B with a greater degree (or even total) of impunity is wrong ? before that ppl used carriers for that in unsafe space.... (yes u can always shoot the cyn victim, but the ship will get there sooner or later) and in safe space ppl used a non related 3rd party to haul or take the ships there..... so much fuss....
|
TEK9
Caldari Captain Morgan Society Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:40:00 -
[103]
Originally by: celtibero
but as for consensual PvP, where did I state that PvP in all of eve is consensual ? in 0.0 u can stop the ships.... and the players dont need to give any consent
Read the thread mate, we are not talking about 0.0 pvp involving bubbles, but Empire and low-sec pvp that doesn't. The question is do CCP want all 'non-consensual' pvp in 0.0 so the carebears can feel 'safe' in Empire?
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 19:58:00 -
[104]
Originally by: celtibero
btw... what about shuttles ? how do u stop them outside 0.0 ? if PvP should be increasingly non-consensual.... shouldnt they be fixed too ?!?
how did u guys stopped shuttles from going anywhere in empire (if the pilot was not using AP in unsafe space) ?
Or is that u consider that moving a ship from point A to point B with a greater degree (or even total) of impunity is wrong ? before that ppl used carriers for that in unsafe space.... (yes u can always shoot the cyn victim, but the ship will get there sooner or later) and in safe space ppl used a non related 3rd party to haul or take the ships there..... so much fuss....
Dude. If that was supposed to be funny it's not. I for one *liked* the status quo pre-QR... Interceptors, shuttles and pods could evade pretty much any gatecamp, but normal combat fitted cruisers and even many frigs were perfectly catchable. It was *fine*. You pick a travel ship or a travel fit for safe-ish traveling, you pick your combat ship with the intention of tackling and killing somebody but risk being tackled and killed yourself. I thought that was very, very fair and balanced... |
Feyona
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 01:19:00 -
[105]
I've noticed this as well. I never had problems catching stuff cruiser sized and up in my Crow, but it seems that now if I manage that they're either plated, I'm lucky, or they want to fight. I feel like I already took a big enough hit with the speed nerf, but now my ship can't even do the part of its job people claimed it had: Quick tackles.
I think they need to just revert all the warp times back to what they used to be pre-QR. Don't honestly see why they did this. I remember the first speed nerf on the test server having the ships be extremely sluggish. That needed to be fixed. They went overboard.
Frigs and perhaps travel-fit cruisers ought to be able to make it through most non-bubble camps. Not saying cruisers and upward should be able to catch frigs (maybe if they're being sensor boosted), but right now the situation is just hopeless.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 09:44:00 -
[106]
Originally by: FlameGlow Nerf to gatecamps is good - ease of gatecamping is one of reasons lowsec became nearly empty.
Originally by: "Captain Thunk" A game that revolves around the principle of 'Risk vs Reward'.
Tell me now of those horrible risks you face while gatecamping
and what about the risks running missions, or ratting in 0.0?
anyways I don't think there is any risk anymore, if a hostile gang shows up campers can just warp off with their new found infinite agility
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 09:50:00 -
[107]
Originally by: celtibero Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:36:21 Edited by: celtibero on 27/11/2008 19:35:11 btw... what about shuttles ? how do u stop them outside 0.0 ? if PvP should be increasingly non-consensual.... shouldnt they be fixed too ?!?
how did u guys stopped shuttles from going anywhere in empire (if the pilot was not using AP in unsafe space) ?
Or is that u consider that moving a ship from point A to point B with a greater degree (or even total) of impunity is wrong ? before that ppl used carriers for that in unsafe space.... (yes u can always shoot the cyn victim, but the ship will get there sooner or later) and in safe space ppl used a non related 3rd party to haul or take the ships there..... so much fuss....
smart bomb them on an exit gate, beyond that, not much you can do about them.
although cruisers avoiding interceptors seems a bit
|
Karenzi
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 10:02:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes there is a problem with ships warping too fast at gates. On the other hand the ship agility is fine. The problem is also not solved by increasing scan res because of server lag. The solution is a whole new mechanic.
Like it takes 2 secs to activate warp drive engines after you decloak and you can't use the same gate within a certain amount of time.
This would eliminate the warp off problem because of the new agilities but still maintaining agility for all ships for general pvp purposes. It also would make it impossible to run back through gates with faster mwd ships.
Problem solved. Too bad ccp never will give in to the carebear whines this would stir up.
oh god, first time reading this thread and this is pure genious. i would murder a hundred babies to get this change.
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 13:09:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Karenzi
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes there is a problem with ships warping too fast at gates. On the other hand the ship agility is fine. The problem is also not solved by increasing scan res because of server lag. The solution is a whole new mechanic.
Like it takes 2 secs to activate warp drive engines after you decloak and you can't use the same gate within a certain amount of time.
This would eliminate the warp off problem because of the new agilities but still maintaining agility for all ships for general pvp purposes. It also would make it impossible to run back through gates with faster mwd ships.
Problem solved. Too bad ccp never will give in to the carebear whines this would stir up.
oh god, first time reading this thread and this is pure genious. i would murder a hundred babies to get this change.
Lydia's idea would be horrible as is IMHO. With some modification, why not... Make it so that the warp drive delay was tied in to the agility of the ship, maybe? With proper balancing that would restore the previous status quo of pods, shuttles, ceptors and some other ships with travel fits being safe for travel except to disco BS.
The idea as presented would lead to total catchability and that also is bad, I think.
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 12:52:00 -
[110]
This topic belongs on the first page IMO. ---
|
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 14:16:00 -
[111]
No it doesnt. You're ticked you're having to work instead of sitting on your ass while gate camping. Yes, the easy gate camping days are numbered. Get over it, adapt and earn your kills, FFS. |
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 15:47:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Matrix Skye No it doesnt. You're ticked you're having to work instead of sitting on your ass while gate camping. Yes, the easy gate camping days are numbered. Get over it, adapt and earn your kills, FFS.
You haven't read this thread at all
If people like you, were able to think for yourselves instead of instantly replying to a topic that they clearly do not understand let alone have read, then perhaps CCP wouldn't be bending over backwards to make sure you can actually login to the game without blowing yourself up within the following 5 minutes.
With infinite choices available to war targets to stay out of harms way - CCP provides yet another alternative to guarantee their safety while carrying on exactly as if not at war
Captain Thunk
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 16:54:00 -
[113]
Oh I read the thread. But thanks for the accusation. Not my fault your agenda shines right through your excuse of flawed game mechanics. Not my fault your fun derives from sitting at a gate raking up easy kills then *****ing to CCP on how it aint so easy any more. If your idea of PVP is camping spawn zones while scratching your butt perhaps this isnt the game for you. Just sayin.
Good day, spawn camper o/
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 17:27:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Captain Thunk on 30/11/2008 17:31:40
Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 30/11/2008 17:14:41 Oh I read the thread. But thanks for the accusation. Not my fault your agenda shines right through your excuse of flawed game mechanics. Not my fault PVP to you means sitting at a gate raking up easy kills then *****ing to CCP on how it aint so easy any more. If your idea of PVP is camping spawn zones while scratching your butt perhaps this isnt the game for you. Just sayin.
In the immortal words of Cartman himself, "Get the fudge out!"
Good day, spawn camper o/
This is why you're an idiot.
I do not gate camp.
However, as I can no longer chase targets because of the unreasonable agility then, as you suggested, I may have to adapt which ironically would mean I'd need to camp gates as I would need a lot of remote sensor boosters which requires the preperation of a gate camp. This would increase catches, although as discussed previously - some are always going to be untouchable due to module lag regardless of locktime.
The past few days I've been amusing myself shooting targets trying to undock from Jita 4-4 - something I didn't use to do. It's quite clear that it is infact you with the transparent agenda, completely unable to defend yourself and lacking the ability to ever learn howto the 'immunity' we've been talking about in this thread is your only hope for salvation.
You don't have the required mental capacity to hold your own in my thread, so kindly keep out.
Captain Thunk
Edit: Looking at your posting history you clearly despise PvP in all its forms and are seeking its total removal.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 17:52:00 -
[115]
Relax dude. Don't threatened me to station camp Jita 4-4. I don't care, really.
But if camping Jita 4-4 is the only thing left for you to do, this obviously isn't the game for you anymore. You'll have to do some soul searching and find the answer on your own.
And your speach on "I'm your only hope for salvation!1!" is touching, but again and I'm sorry, not interested. No offense taken I hope?
And I have nothing against PVP. Just the whining cryrats that rely on the cheapest game mechanics and then ***** on how the game is getting "oh so difficult [very sad panda face]".
Eve is a cold harsh place... even for you. Adapt or die, n00b, etc etc.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 17:58:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Captain Thunk ahh.... 1 year+ in a new player corp with no standings to anything other than the tutorial agent, guess you don't even have the balls to post with your main
I dont have e-balls, no :( I'm e-ballless :(
Seriuosly dude, unless you're going to post with YOUR real life name, address, etc, save the "You ;lDotnt POst wiTN GAME AvaTAR Jo0 iS CoWARd!111"
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 18:00:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Matrix Skye Relax dude. Don't threatened me to station camp Jita 4-4. I don't care, really.
But if camping Jita 4-4 is the only thing left for you to do, this obviously isn't the game for you anymore. You'll have to do some soul searching and find the answer on your own.
And your speach on "I'm your only hope for salvation!1!" is touching, but again and I'm sorry, not interested. No offense taken I hope?
And I have nothing against PVP. Just the whining cryrats that rely on the cheapest game mechanics and then ***** on how the game is getting "oh so difficult [very sad panda face]".
Eve is a cold harsh place... even for you. Adapt or die, n00b, etc etc.
I'm not camping you in Jita, didn't know you were in Jita - I'm camping war targets? or is one of those your main? is this your real interest in this thread?
I didn't say I was your salvation, I said CCP were you salvation by cutting out non consensual PvP with the increased agility.
You're posting history indicates you really do have something against PvP and you're careful not to post on your main. Kinda says it all really doesn't it?
Eve isn't a cold harsh place, it's remarkably safe as it happens. Main danger in this game is getting scammed by your friends.
Captain Thunk
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 18:08:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Captain Thunk ahh.... 1 year+ in a new player corp with no standings to anything other than the tutorial agent, guess you don't even have the balls to post with your main
I dont have e-balls, no :( I'm e-ballless :(
Seriuosly dude, unless you're going to post with YOUR real life name, address, etc, save the "You ;lDotnt POst wiTN GAME AvaTAR Jo0 iS CoWARd!111"
It just indicates that you're simply trolling because you're bored. Hence you continually misreading what anyone says in order to launch into your next troll.
Captain Thunk
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 08:14:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Matrix Skye No it doesnt. You're ticked you're having to work instead of sitting on your ass while gate camping. Yes, the easy gate camping days are numbered. Get over it, adapt and earn your kills, FFS.
You didn't read this thread? I already pointed out that I'm not a pirate, I am in FW... Where all my WTs already signed up to fight in a permadec.
And this change affects all empire PVP. Roaming and small gang guerilla tactics even more than gatecamping. The very things CCP promised to keep viable...
Nearly the only thing that is going to guarantee you a fight in FW right now is bringing a blob they can then outblob. Outside of the few noob solo BS/ BCs and very slow cruisers. Oh, and the totally new pilots who do not know what to do when they want to avoid a fight. How fun is that? ---
|
TEK9
Caldari Captain Morgan Society Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 18:55:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Matrix Skye No it doesnt. You're ticked you're having to work instead of sitting on your ass while gate camping. Yes, the easy gate camping days are numbered. Get over it, adapt and earn your kills, FFS.
With your wealth of pvp experience perhaps you would care to enlighten the rest of us how to catch ships (in Empire) that are uncatchable?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |