open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Can we now have local 0.0 removed please?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (14)

Author Topic

Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:08:00 - [241]
 

You have given an example which demonstrates how the balance between one combat gang and another combat gang might be retained were local to be removed. But obviously there is more than one type of combat in Eve, and as everyone here has been pointing out the kind of combat that stands to become imbalanced is not one combat gang vs another combat gang, but rather one combat gang or solo gankers vs ratters and miners. So I don't see what this adds to the debate.

I'm not sure what point your example about the Inty scout is trying to make either. With no local you would use a cloaked scout, a quick look around with the directional scanner and 30 seconds later you would know what you would have known by looking at local. Unless perhaps you are trying to suggest that the thirty seconds it takes for you to make that scan makes your job so much more difficult that it balances out the fact that if there are any targets in the system they have no way to detect you at all, which would be stretching the bounds of credibility somewhat.





Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:49:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: frog'us
Edited by: frog''us on 18/06/2009 14:14:48
There is currently no risk whatsoever for a ratter that has local open.

what exactly are the risk for gankers ?


There is no risk in attacking people who make no effort to protect or defend themselves.

From the tone of your question it seems that you think this is somehow wrong.

Zirketch Kruug
Minmatar
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:55:00 - [243]
 

Firstly, after the second page I couldn't be bothered reading more whines so my suggestion may have been covered already. Here goes... (could be flawed so please comment)

As I understand it all channels are connected throught a "Deep-Space" signal, i.e. all ships are permanently connected to this signal. So some options could be something like:

1) Automatically connect to deep-space signal on entry to system, i.e. presence in local is displayed (your ship pings the tower on entry and ID confirmed).

2) Never connect to "Deep-Space" Signal, i.e. no presence in any channel.

3) Manual connection to "Deep-Space Signal, Local is blind to you and you are blind to local. Thus as soon as you chatter in in any private channel you have connected to the tower and your presence is broadcast. Since many in eve use TS or Vent this is easily avoided, but eve-voice will give a presence marker.

This method could possibly be coupled with Sov in system/Constalation, i.e. some control for the occupying force, Attacking force would need to field a "Deep-Space signal scrambler" (new module/ship possibly).

Just a few thoughts but on the whole I agree local needs to modified in 0.0 and possibly lowsec.

Zirk.YARRRR!!








Jukhtress Mein
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:19:00 - [244]
 

In any real life military context and in almost all gaming contexts, industrial types are always escorted or protected in some form with military ships. I don't see why this should be any different in Eve. If the carebear/escort says: thats a waste of time and resources - every 1 escort spent doing escorting duties is 1 less miner, and it's totally boring, then they are merely trying to be greedy.

Deathhawk
Hammersmith Hardmen
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:25:00 - [245]
 

hmm makes sense actually i never thought about it being a macro but it is ****ing annoying

im all for removing local in 0.0 its awesome in wh space

wtbrandomnamegenerator
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:47:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

throughout this thread you have flamed any suggestions along the lines of scanner mechanic changes or changes to cloaking, and instead you have advocated the wspace recent speakers model with no mechanic changes at all, which you know full well is not what CCP want for 0.0 and lowsec.



First, I'm going to need you to quote one place I've flamed anybody suggesting a change to scanning mechanics

Second, I'll need you to back that by quoting me flaming someone suggesting a change to cloaking mechanics

Last "which you know full well is not what CCP want for 0.0 and low sec"....well, honestly, I've never mentioned changing low sec, its still under the province of the empires, and assumed it would have whatever RP spin signal generators that empire would have.

0.0 is supposed to be totally unsafe, unless you make it safe, so, make it like that.

I also, unlike you who obviously has the ear of some dev, do NOT know full well if they want it to be like WH space, but its good that you have the developers ear like you do, so perhaps YOU could tell us (since you know full well what they wantRolling Eyes) what they want for 0.0 and low sec.

Also, no, I'm a jerk IRL too, and I get paid to be one, but it was a nice sentiment.

elscorcho
Remus inc
Despoilment Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:49:00 - [247]
 

I'm scared enough about moving into 0.0 with my corp, please don't take local away from me! :(

Aylara
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:37:00 - [248]
 

OMG, it's full of bots. Remove the damn local chat already. I didn't see people complaining about the lack of local in WH space.

0.0 is for the people that want a challenge, a harsh environment, the endgame not the Carebear Bonanza. The Empire is there for all the people that want to play in reasonable safety.

Remove the local chat.

Djana Libra
Caldari
Fallen Angel's
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:45:00 - [249]
 

Remove it from low-sec and empire as well please

TradePirate
Posted - 2009.06.19 13:07:00 - [250]
 

Edited by: TradePirate on 19/06/2009 13:08:37
After recently being in 0.0 to get my sec back, I encountered 2 such bots in 2 systems next to one another.
Literally every belt was killed, never looted, EVEN the faction wrecks (Odd isnt it?)

I say these bots should be totally banned and their main accounts, or allow everyone to use them because its such an unfair advantage, especially for those like me that have to pay to play with ISK (PLEX) at this moment because of financial troubles, and even the plex prices are hiked up beyond affordability by greedy resellers (Possibly those who use bots) to get those insane amounts of isk to keep buying and reselling plex.

I think PLEX should have a static cost in game as it involves RMT.

300 million for 30 days, 100m for 10 day seems reasonable not 150.

Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2009.06.19 14:14:00 - [251]
 

@wtbrandomnamegenerator

I find it hard to believe that you don't think we've already ****ted up this thread quite enough yet, or that anyone here really wants to see a rerun of your vitriolic posting. But so be it.

Originally by: "needrandomnamegenerator"

Yea, your ******ed, THIS is why 0.0 is as empty as it is:



Here is you calling Armoured C a ******, who while he hasn't actually proposed any specific new scanner mechanic of his own had voiced the opinion that a new mechanic would be needed before local could be sensibly removed.

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

Wow, what awesome blatant lies you tell my friend!

This is the crux of the problem, people like you stretching the truth to such an extent that you muddle the entire discussion.
...

you, and your posts are no longer worth reading, as you are pursuing a personal agenda, and will lie to see it through to its end.



And here is you calling me a liar when I expressed the opinion that force recons are currently too combat capable for a no-local system to be reasonable.

As far as whether CCP want 0.0 to be like wspace or not you stated yourself in your previous post that:

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

CCP have specifically stated that they WANT local removed from 0.0, ...
They just want a new scanner mechanic to go along with it.



Which by definition is NOT what is in wspace since there they have 'recent speakers' local and no scanner mechanic changes.

So when you flame me for claiming that you know full well that the current wspace mechanic is not what CCP want for 0.0:

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

I also, unlike you who obviously has the ear of some dev, do NOT know full well if they want it to be like WH space



You have really only served to contradict yourself.

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

I'm a jerk



So it would seem.






Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.06.19 14:21:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: TradePirate


I think PLEX should have a static cost in game as it involves RMT.

300 million for 30 days, 100m for 10 day seems reasonable not 150.


Can you cite some successful examples of command economies mandating artificially low pricing and succeeding? Various government have tried this in the past, generally with good prices and always (as far as I now) with identical results:

Famine and/or a massive black market.

Why do you think your idea would not mean that the legitimate supply of PLEX would not dry up overnight?

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2009.06.19 14:56:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

Originally by: "needrandomnamegenerator"

Yea, your ******ed, THIS is why 0.0 is as empty as it is:



Here is you calling Armoured C a ******, who while he hasn't actually proposed any specific new scanner mechanic of his own had voiced the opinion that a new mechanic would be needed before local could be sensibly removed.

Man, that's pretty weak. I mean, the Pilgrim stuff might have been a genuine misunderstanding due to the way you wrote it up, but with this other stuff you're just digging a hole for yourself.

wtbrandomnamegenerator's rudeness notwithstanding.

wtbrandomnamegenerator
Posted - 2009.06.19 15:13:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
@wtbrandomnamegenerator

I find it hard to believe that you don't think we've already ****ted up this thread quite enough yet, or that anyone here really wants to see a rerun of your vitriolic posting. But so be it.

Originally by: "needrandomnamegenerator"

Yea, your ******ed, THIS is why 0.0 is as empty as it is:



Here is you calling Armoured C a ******, who while he hasn't actually proposed any specific new scanner mechanic of his own had voiced the opinion that a new mechanic would be needed before local could be sensibly removed.

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

Wow, what awesome blatant lies you tell my friend!

This is the crux of the problem, people like you stretching the truth to such an extent that you muddle the entire discussion.
...

you, and your posts are no longer worth reading, as you are pursuing a personal agenda, and will lie to see it through to its end.



And here is you calling me a liar when I expressed the opinion that force recons are currently too combat capable for a no-local system to be reasonable.

As far as whether CCP want 0.0 to be like wspace or not you stated yourself in your previous post that:

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

CCP have specifically stated that they WANT local removed from 0.0, ...
They just want a new scanner mechanic to go along with it.



Which by definition is NOT what is in wspace since there they have 'recent speakers' local and no scanner mechanic changes.

So when you flame me for claiming that you know full well that the current wspace mechanic is not what CCP want for 0.0:

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

I also, unlike you who obviously has the ear of some dev, do NOT know full well if they want it to be like WH space



You have really only served to contradict yourself.

Originally by: "wtbrandomnamegenerator"

I'm a jerk



So it would seem.








See, when i quote you, its in context, usually with the entire line of gibberish you've spoken.

Your nice enough to pull out the bits and pieces you find relevant to your argument.

Lets examine shall we (cause no, we've not yet shat it up enough)

My comments to AC had nothing to do with any discussion about any type of scanner mechanic, we were speaking about how local prevents, or helps fights ( I say it prevents them, he says its neeeded to have them), but since you took only the smallest snipet, you chose to inject it with something the actual posts had NOTHING to do with.

Bravo

As to your post, I called you a liar when you listed out a long line of things that you made the impression that you could do ALL AT ONCE on your ship. Not force recons in general, you were speaking specifically about the pilgrim, and how you could do this, and that, and some of this, all at once and how you thought it was probably OP'd. I called you out on your truth stretching (I called it lying because honestly, thats what you were doing, if not intentionally misleading people who may have not flown the ship before)

Again, stellar score on your part

Last to your "you know full well blah blah blah". No, in point of fact, neither you, nor I, know what the devs want for 0.0, in fact, one could surmise that WH space was a test bed for future 0.0 changes, but you automatically jump to the conclusion of "THATS NOT WHAT THE DEVS WANT". Well how the hell do you know what they want? Did one of them tell you? Have you vital inside information that none of us have? I doubt it.

In the end, you were unable to provide proof of me flaming anyone for suggestion that scanner OR cloaking mechanics should change, simply because I NEVER DID, you misconstrued and generally misrepresented (on the AC bit its actually an out right baseless lie) things that I said to fit your argument (shocker), most likely because your unable to come up with a decent argument to support your ever weakening position (really, lies and manipulations do little to make your point).

Thanks for playing along

Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2009.06.19 15:56:00 - [255]
 

What nonsense.

But you are right on one point. You didn't really flame anyone who made a specific scanner change suggestion, it would have been far more accurate for me to say that you've just trolled and denigrated pretty much everyone who's disagreed with you. Better now?

The section in my post you objected to started:

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

2. Make the force recons more fragile, their role should be scouting, blackops cynoing behind enemy lines, and ewar.



So when you say I wasn't talking about force recons in general you're just plain wrong I'm afraid, suck it up. The talk about the Pilgrim was just a part of that section that was an example of what the ship could be made to do. If you got the impression that I had a fit that could do everything I stated with a Cyno fitted at the same time you had the perfect opportunity to ask me about it, but no you chose to call me names instead. If you think it suits your purpose to imagine that I deliberately intended to mislead you and that calling people names is the best way to open a discussion then go right ahead, just don't expect me to put up with your nonsense though.

And yes, we don't really know what the devs want regarding local, I doubt they know themselves tbh, but they have stated that they want better scanning mechanics before they would consider removing local, and I haven't asserted that you or I know anything more than that. And before you ask no I can't be bothered to find for the dev post for you, look for it yourself.

And as for 'playing along', ****ting up a thread that had the potential for a decent debate might be good fun for the likes of you, but for me it's pretty weak sport tbh so I'd rather you went and played with yourself.

0/


Descrambled
Posted - 2009.06.19 16:01:00 - [256]
 

Isn't this sad? I always thought EVE was the one place where players were empowered to kill macroers and farmers. Even if it meant incurring the wrath of CONCORD

This new hack removes my freedom to kill macroers. This is just ridiculous people are ok with this. CCP please investigate the macroers posting in this thread!

Christopher Multsanti
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.06.19 16:36:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
You have given an example which demonstrates how the balance between one combat gang and another combat gang might be retained were local to be removed. But obviously there is more than one type of combat in Eve, and as everyone here has been pointing out the kind of combat that stands to become imbalanced is not one combat gang vs another combat gang, but rather one combat gang or solo gankers vs ratters and miners. So I don't see what this adds to the debate.


It adds to the debate because roaming gangs don't go out in 0.0 just looking for lone ratters and miners but looking for fights with other gangs. You simply can't ignore it, because removing local in 0.0 affects everyone in 0.0.

Small roaming gangs traveling 20 jumps would be in far more danger than a ratter that stays in one system all night and may never be visited by anyone.

Without local, the chance of being ganked by a larger blob would increase massively. The point Shae was making is that local is used as intel tool far too much and is normally used to avoid a fight or gank a smaller gang. Only very few, experienced, confident people want a fair fight.

The point he was making was even though he would be in far greater danger, local needs to be gone, things need shaking up.

Lunas Feelnob
Posted - 2009.06.19 16:53:00 - [258]
 

Bob sucks!

Sir Molle and DB Preacher.... Oh wait wrong forum.


Lunas Feelboob
Caldari
The Lunas Feelnoob Fan Club
Posted - 2009.06.19 17:13:00 - [259]
 

Edited by: Lunas Feelboob on 19/06/2009 17:14:28
i agree!

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2009.06.19 17:50:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: Dragon Greg on 19/06/2009 17:52:21
Originally by: Christopher Multsanti

It adds to the debate because roaming gangs don't go out in 0.0 just looking for lone ratters and miners but looking for fights with other gangs. You simply can't ignore it, because removing local in 0.0 affects everyone in 0.0.

Small roaming gangs traveling 20 jumps would be in far more danger than a ratter that stays in one system all night and may never be visited by anyone.

Without local, the chance of being ganked by a larger blob would increase massively. The point Shae was making is that local is used as intel tool far too much and is normally used to avoid a fight or gank a smaller gang. Only very few, experienced, confident people want a fair fight.

The point he was making was even though he would be in far greater danger, local needs to be gone, things need shaking up.


Until the day where it would actually hurt players to blob it will remain the first thing people jump into, pretty sad but basic human behaviour.

It's not just a matter of changing Local channel, or scanning mechanics, or turning EVE into some sci fi sonar version of submarines in space. The biggest component of it all is pushing our own buttons.

The argument of intel tool holds only until the first killmail, after that gets posted gang composition and numbers are known. Sadly instead of matching it to have some fun 99.999999999% of EVE will do the only thing they know: they will raise 800+ people (so to speak, you get the point) to deal with a 20 man gang - just in case that gang has backup or a hotdrop ready - or they will do nothing at all since the hostile gang can't touch the Holy X64 Tree.

It's like Titans. We don't admit that one or two of them will keep us on our toes and away from blind blobbing, we whine about how a dozen doomsdays suck, we cry about how a dozen doomsdays under a jammer is killing the game. But when push comes to shove we consciously choose to field the ships in ever increasing numbers. And even in the light of changes coming we stay stuck in that doctrine. Do we stop building them, or buying them, no. We step it up to put more supercaps in the oven just in case the doomsday damage gets diminished or revamped so we need more to compensate.

Sorry, but it is not a matter of one fix for all. It isn't either a matter of everybody getting his or her fix. What we've got instead is a big pile of highly interacting mechanisms (part feature and part behaviour) which needs changing.

It's pretty clear by now that CCP are looking at changing 0.0, in a number of ways. Personally I hope they do not just features, but also take our own insanity into account.

The holy grail has always been risk and reward, perhaps it is time to add a third leg: pain, and no, no pun intended.

How many doomsdays will we field when by the third we toast our own cynojammer. How big a blob will we field should a gang composition overload ship computers resulting in say a speed decrease or time to kick into warp (find some technically adept roleplayer to work that angle :P). How many miners will we see running around when we can only build capital components with ores solely available in 0.0 space.

The alternative to proper changes with long term vision is going back to Napoleontic warfare. Hostile X and Y meet in Chribba's bar in Amarr, smack each other in the face, and agree to bring their guys to fight it out over the weekend in region Z while having a good idea what who will bring and when.
Could be fun, just doesn't taste like EVE imo.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2009.06.19 18:07:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Dragon Greg

The argument of intel tool holds only until the first killmail, after that gets posted gang composition and numbers are known. Sadly instead of matching it to have some fun 99.999999999% of EVE will do the only thing they know: they will raise 800+ people (so to speak, you get the point) to deal with a 20 man gang - just in case that gang has backup or a hotdrop ready - or they will do nothing at all since the hostile gang can't touch the Holy X64 Tree.

This already happens, and won't change no matter what happens to Local, or much else in EVE's game mechanics. Those who liked large numbers will continue to form large fleets, and those who liked solo/small gang will stay with their style*. Because that's how people in THIS GAME behave. Don't try to apply general psychology to a very specialist subset of the gaming population. It will not work.

*Speaking about roaming and spontaneous ops only. Obviously there are ops that require large or small task forces by their nature.

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2009.06.19 18:17:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Razin
This already happens, and won't change no matter what happens to Local, or much else in EVE's game mechanics. Those who liked large numbers will continue to form large fleets, and those who liked solo/small gang will stay with their style*. Because that's how people in THIS GAME behave. Don't try to apply general psychology to a very specialist subset of the gaming population. It will not work.

*Speaking about roaming and spontaneous ops only. Obviously there are ops that require large or small task forces by their nature.


aha, ok. Roaming and spontaneous ops, I agree on that view. Sadly psychology is always a part of the game, because, well, it's played by people. Unless it's sheep playing it.
When psychology is not taking into account in game mechanics, you get situations like how we deal with sovereignty ..

Yes, you are right. There are very specialist subsets of the gaming population. Each with their own mindset. Yet in EVE there's quite a bunch of those interacting together.

There is a lot less room or opportunity for such ops these days then there was last year tbh. Unless you order in a slice of CVA ofcourse.


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.06.19 19:17:00 - [263]
 

The success of w-space has proven the viability of removing local without changing the scanning mechanics. It works just fine having local in delayed mode with the current scanner. There is zero reason to not change 0.0 local to delayed mode.

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2009.06.19 19:21:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The success of w-space has proven the viability of removing local without changing the scanning mechanics. It works just fine having local in delayed mode with the current scanner. There is zero reason to not change 0.0 local to delayed mode.


Repeating the same statement with alts and mains over and over does not make it any more true or false man :P

W-space is a very different mindset, slowly but certainly. Until we give it decent time to see how it really works out (noticing the upcoming changes to drop rates since the place isn't yielding enough ..) any "judgement" is premature.

That being said, I do wish the economist had datamined that aspect, even preliminary, and put it in the QEN. Would give better insights then just private observations across the board.

Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp
Not Found.
Posted - 2009.06.19 20:34:00 - [265]
 

Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/06/2009 20:35:07
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The success of w-space has proven the viability of removing local without changing the scanning mechanics. It works just fine having local in delayed mode with the current scanner. There is zero reason to not change 0.0 local to delayed mode.


Why people don't use their brain more than one minute before posting...

In WH, you don't have gates. Just one or more WH that not everyone can use as everyone don't have skills or the good ship size to find/use it. So the risk to encounter others players is low as it is difficult to reach them. Also, their positions change all the time and so this motivate people for fast operations, to not be lost.

The first time - and last time - I encountered players, one month ago, I saw 3 people. They disappear few minutes after and I never see life again in all next WHs I do. The only thing I found since, is an abandoned POS last week...

Of course, it is not a generality, but apart maybe in Class 1...

So maybe the reason that no one complain about local in WH, is because the risk to encounter someone is LOWER than ANY null secs ?

So that the risk is very low ?

So no, WH hasn't prove the viability of removing local, as a WH is totally different of a standard solar system.

Drakolus
Amarr
Dopehead Industries
True Reign
Posted - 2009.06.19 20:37:00 - [266]
 

I like the idea presented, uh, page 2 I think?

Maybe instead of nerfing local (which has some merits but also flaws) put some scrams and points on more rats.

If we are specifically looking to counter Macro-ratters having the BS's occasionally have points would increase your chances of catching them in a belt. By no means would it be a guarantee, to many factors go into it, but it would take it from zero chance to at least some chance.

I've tried the "wait 5 minutes" and then shotgun the belts approach, I have not anchored bubbles in the belts and I have tried a logonski once but so far no luck.

At least if you slap points on semi-survivable rats (not all, but have it chance based) there will always be a chance that the macro is trying to finish them off while you get lucky and warp in on him.

Even as a regular 0.0 ratter I would be willing to take this risk in order to provide the chance that more Macros would die as a result as well.

Joshua Calvert
Caldari
Rule One
Posted - 2009.06.19 20:59:00 - [267]
 

Remove local everywhere.

Enraku Reynolt
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.06.19 21:05:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: frog'us
Edited by: frog''us on 18/06/2009 14:14:48
There is currently no risk whatsoever for a ratter that has local open.

what exactly are the risk for gankers ?


There is no risk in attacking people who make no effort to protect or defend themselves.

From the tone of your question it seems that you think this is somehow wrong.


funny, thought the reason they warp and cloak was to hide...which is defending themselves

Reachok
Amarr
Wrecking Shots
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.06.19 21:15:00 - [269]
 

Well, I had a long well thought out reply to this, clicked on preview, got a 505 error - all was lost.

So, long story short: Take local, give me back instant update on pilots in space. Provides strategic information in real time but won't tell me who's next door without either me going there or investing a scout to look.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2009.06.19 22:03:00 - [270]
 

Originally by: Drakolus
I like the idea presented, uh, page 2 I think?

Maybe instead of nerfing local (which has some merits but also flaws) put some scrams and points on more rats.

If we are specifically looking to counter Macro-ratters having the BS's occasionally have points would increase your chances of catching them in a belt. By no means would it be a guarantee, to many factors go into it, but it would take it from zero chance to at least some chance.

I've tried the "wait 5 minutes" and then shotgun the belts approach, I have not anchored bubbles in the belts and I have tried a logonski once but so far no luck.

At least if you slap points on semi-survivable rats (not all, but have it chance based) there will always be a chance that the macro is trying to finish them off while you get lucky and warp in on him.

Even as a regular 0.0 ratter I would be willing to take this risk in order to provide the chance that more Macros would die as a result as well.


I guess you don't know that rats in 0.0 do scram.
But hey, you've probably never lived there so can't expect you to know that.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (14)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only