open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Prometheus Exenthal
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:26:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal on 25/02/2011 01:34:00

THE GIST
EVE is at risk of losing itself. As it stands right now the tutorial should recommend purchasing a second account to tag along, and to me thatís a bad thing. EVE shouldnít be reserved for those with hundreds of players on call, so I want to help balance the scales.

I see doing such things as helping restore dignity to the once proud command ships, and adding some much needed balls to the fat and ineffective Assault and EWar frigates; I will do my best to show players (and devs) that there is more than one solution than ďbring a friendĒ. Mechanic and balance changes are in order; be it simple things like armor rigs, reworking of risk/reward, or the more delicate tweaking of ECCM. There is work to be done before the influx of funny hats, and my five years of EVE experience in fleet, sov, small, and solo warfare will work in your favour.

Itís time CCP took a look at the little guys. Itís time pvp was less about the number of players, and more about playerís ability.

Vote PROM4CSM
www.promsrage.com




ABOUT MYSELF
In EVE I only have one character that I have used since I started playing the game in 2006.
The character is Prometheus Exenthal of Genos Occidere, and through him Iíve made 13 well received (arguably influential) pvp videos including the FRIGANK series and Honourable Samurai. My skill set started largely as piloting frigates for all races, but has since grown to anything up to the command ships as well as Gallente & Caldari battleships. I try not to discriminate since all the races have something to offer.

As for myself, my name is Adrian Mugnieco from Ontario, Canada. Iím 23; Iíve studied 3D Game Design & Animation, as well as Web Design & Programming so Iím very familiar with the game development pipeline and short timeframes. Outside of EVE Iím all over the place; I enjoy 3d modeling, snowboarding, and am very much into motorsport (or anything fast for that matter).


WHY I'M RUNNING
Over the years Iíve done just about everything from my starting out as an empire-dwelling mission runner, to a pawn in 00 sov warfare, to my current and most enjoyable position as single thorn in every fleets side. I feel it's time I try to give back to the EVE community in a more direct fashion.

All of these experiences put me in a unique position. I have a wealth of game knowledge, a solid understanding of how the game is working, and Iím routinely helping people with their fittings, and theories. Plus, Iím constantly making new videos so I can show people my vision of what is possible with some determination, no lifelines, and a little creativity (also isk).

I love EVE. EVE is the only game that Iíve played for numerous years and never really stopped. The social concepts, the people, the ships, the vision of what EVE can and will eventually become; all of this keeps me here.


WHY YOU'D VOTE FOR ME
For starters, itís because you want to get EVE out of its bloated downward spiral. Everybody should know that adding new features while ignoring the broken old ones is not how you make progress. Cracks in the foundation need to be fixed before any substantial building begins.

Iíve played with just about every aspect of the game, from generic foot soldier in sov warfare, to pos control in wormholes, running guerilla tactics, to standing ground until the bitter end. Iíve got a good grasp on what is and what isnít working when it comes to pvp the current mechanics.

All of this results in the understanding of individual ships and their behaviour. How they perform on a micro level, how their weapons work. What will hit, what will miss, how to adjust accordingly; all with no room for error. As any bittervet will tell you, itís not something that can be taught.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:28:00 - [2]
 

PVP AND YOU
Many of you probably know what I do; Iím a solo pilot. I fly on my own, and I fly without links and scouts. Itís my firm belief that fights neednít solely be 100v100 as that is simply one aspect of the EVE dynamic. People will argue that EVE is an MMO and as such I'm supposed to fly with many players. To that I say, I do; Iím just the enemy, and I fly against.

Now, solo isnít just some little niche thing that nobody tries. Some players would jump at the chance to solo if the opportunity arose, and many have tried and failed via the vertical difficulty. However, it isnít simply black and white, as in between the large and alone there are the small scale players. Groups anywhere from 5-10+ players going about the universe, and generally gumming up the works for the big alliances. Theyíre people who have an overall goal, and use their individual piloting ability to assist the group. Theyíre the people who will gain much more than the standard solo pilot.


CHANGING FOR THE FUTURE
SHIP BALANCING
Iím starting with the ships classes as they are the foundation of the game. Poorly designed ships result in poorly designed choices when it comes to offense and defens. There is obviously more to it than this, but I feel that is beyond the scope of this write-up.

Command ships have long been a staple of fleet warfare, but since the additions of the tech three ships people donít see the need to train longer for a less powerful ship. Because of this, I feel that the entire class should be looked over. Most of the fleet command ships can do with some more damage, and overall something as simple as significantly higher agility or sensor strength would be a welcome addition. In the same vein, tier one faction cruisers need a bit of love. It isnít because they are terrible ships, but largely because they donít really line up with the tier one faction battleships being quite good. They arenít meant to be unstoppable, just worthy of their money and time invested.

Assault and EWar frigates are arguably the two most useless classes in the game at the moment. EWar frigates are plagued with being incredibly easy to kill with support ships, and painfully useless when fit to counter such things. They can be extremely effective, but statistics show that pilots would rather pay the extra isk for a much more versatile and survivable recon cruiser. Assault ships have a different problem in that they are supposed to hit hard and tank hard. They donít do either very well anymore since CCP decided to boost the faction line of ships. I have done a couple of write-ups on the subject on both eve-o and other forums and I feel there are a couple of reasonable solutions.

Similarly, destroyer hulls have long been imbalanced. There isnít much to say about them other than that they are very much skewed in the favour of one race which shall not be named.

MECHANICAL BALANCE
This is has potential to be a pretty broad topic, but there are only a few aspects I want to bring up since they will have the largest impact.

First, ewar changes for Caldari & Gallente. Dampeners need a tweak, be it through ship bonuses or module attributes. ECM changes need to be tweaked, and I feel that racial jammers should only work on their intended race. In addition to that, slight sensor strength increases across the board for everything except recons and capitals.

Secondly, weapons need to be looked at little more. Faction FOFs should be added back into the game; I canít see why they were removed to begin with. Itís possible that they were broken in the past, but there is no reason for them to be omitted now. Also, medium and large blasters need to have their damage and tracking increased in order to actually compete with the current mechanics. Blaster ships are designed to be brawlers, yet are not any more powerful to accommodate this fact.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:30:00 - [3]
 

MECHANICAL BALANCE (CONT..)
Also, ships that rely on armor tanking, be it active or passive, suffer greatly from the penalties armor rigs add. They make slow ships slower, and in many cases make it very difficult to maintain range or tackle. The armor penalty is not balanced when compared to shield tanking which hampers a ships performance in no way.

Lastly is the risk versus reward aspect of pvp. As it stands right now, there is absolutely no reason not to fly in a large gang. No reason not to camp a gate and just wait. Pilots donít truly pvp for profit anymore, and instead just do it to maintain space or prowess. This does not scale well for the little people not associated with owning space or stroking egos. The risk is far too great and the payout is far too small. There is very little ambition left in the battlefield and the easy way out is just as profitable.


THE BENEFITS
Ideally these slight changes will help reduce player dependence on having more numbers to be successful. EVE doesnít need to be a game that consists only of large fleet battles, but recent gameplay changes have put the balance largely in that direction. Sure some changes may drastically change the way you play, but I wager that they will be for the players best interest. Additionally, I'm hoping that these ideas will help change the developer mindset when it comes to future adjustments and expansions. CCP has created a great game with EVE, and I'd like to see it evolve into an even better battleground long after this CSM term has ended.

PROM4CSM
www.promsrage.com

Integra Kusanagi
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:26:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Integra Kusanagi on 25/02/2011 07:28:31
A nice breath of fresh air in the pvp cloud.

+1

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2011.02.25 12:25:00 - [5]
 

Did you read my diary?

I cannot claim to be good at solo, but small gangs of 2-5 guys is my passion in eve. Pretty similar problems for us.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:19:00 - [6]
 

Prometheus Exenthal:

Explicitly and literally, could you please walk me through the means by whichóin other words, by what exact mechanic(s) or specific process(es)óyou intend to get your pet topics pushed through to CCP? Bear in mind that it has been expressly stated by CCP, ever since the advent of the CSM, that the CSM does not exist to serve as a group of amateur game developers. I am genuinely curious how you intend to bypass the stated position of CCPóthat doing things is not what the CSM is foróso that you can deliver on your promise to do things or get things done.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:31:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal on 25/02/2011 21:30:59
I am not claiming to have the be-all end-all of ideas.
I would simply like to direct their attention to the mess they are leaving behind before all attention is on Incarna.

I am not interested in talking politics with CCP, I don't have the patience for it and that doesn't help anybody.
I'm not looking to make changes on future content without fixing the old and rotting foundation.

I am running because I know pvp, and I know it better than any other space politician trying to stir the pot with :words:

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:35:00 - [8]
 

I will probably cast one of my votes for you if you can convince me through a post on this forum that you are capable of arguing, convincing, debating and otherwise politicking on caliber with The Mittani. As you may or may not know, he is a successful attorney when he is not flying a Sabre, and as such one would suppose that he has a fairly good command of both the English language and the rhetoric intrinsic with getting groups to accomplish goals. These seem to me to be necessary things for a CSM candidate if one is to be seriously useful to the EVE community, as without them communication with a solid and unified message does not and cannot occur.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 22:25:00 - [9]
 

It should be expected of every delegate to be taking everything CCP says with extreme skepticism.
Nobody should be willing to roll over simply because a new feature is said to be the most :awesome: thing EVE has ever seen.
I expect that those who win will leave their rose-tinted glasses behind, because this isn't supposed to be a picnic.

Mittani doesn't ensure anything more than himself shouting at CCP.
He promises what every CSM member shouldn't have to proclaim, because it should be expected.
And he's doing all of this without any insight to share.

A comparison isn't really necessary as he doesn't need any publicized help getting into the CSM.
If the swarm wants him in, it won't be because all of those players care about his vision; it will be because it's just another thing to stamp their names on and laugh about down the road.
For all anyone knows, he could simply show up and be voted in without saying a word to the public.

Here the power of numbers is obvious, and doesn't need to be explained. Especially when it's in regard to a notoriously manipulative player who happens to lead an exceedingly large and (arguably) obedient playerbase.

For those who actually want to try and make a change, vote in support of the pvp foundation of EVE, vote prom4csm.

iP0D
Posted - 2011.02.25 23:10:00 - [10]
 

Serious question.

What gives you the idea that any of your issues are possible to inject in CCP's roadmap considering that the next few dev cycles are already mapped out. Don't get me wrong man, good points, but we've all seen how CCP deals with such matters.

You get the party theme. Promises. 18 months. What do you have for plan other than a grand idea with detail stuff which CCP doesn't even WANT to look at. Read the PC Gamer interview? Lead Game Designer statements there are very insightful Neutral

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.25 23:31:00 - [11]
 

If the players demand for fixes is significantly larger than that of new hats for their avatars, then CCP should oblige.
Persistence is key, and voting in players who see the problems with the current state of the game should have an effect.
The results aren't instantaneous by any means, but all it takes is some keys changes to set the events in motion.

It's true, CCP will eventually end up doing what they want and they might even ignore the past altogether; But having the right team for the job can help deflect some of the bull**** they will undoubtedly try to peddle, as well as help prevent future gameplay and balance blunders.

I can't guarantee anything, nobody can. Don't let anyone tell you different.
CCP can become completely disagreeable with the CSM on a whim if they so choose. No actions past, present, or future, are set in stone.

Internet Lawyer
Posted - 2011.02.25 23:42:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal

Persistence is key, and voting in players who see the problems with the current state of the game should have an effect.
The results aren't instantaneous by any means, but all it takes is some keys changes to set the events in motion.

It's true, CCP will eventually end up doing what they want and they might even ignore the past altogether; But having the right team for the job can help deflect some of the bull**** they will undoubtedly try to peddle, as well as help prevent future gameplay and balance blunders.


I like what you are saying but I would like to hear more about the team part of your platform. What do you think would make up a good team on the CSM? What kind of people do you want to work with? Which candidates do you see helping you make the most impact to get your goals on the table and addressed?

iP0D
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:08:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal
If the players demand for fixes is significantly larger than that of new hats for their avatars, then CCP should oblige.
Persistence is key, and voting in players who see the problems with the current state of the game should have an effect.
The results aren't instantaneous by any means, but all it takes is some keys changes to set the events in motion.

It's true, CCP will eventually end up doing what they want and they might even ignore the past altogether; But having the right team for the job can help deflect some of the bull**** they will undoubtedly try to peddle, as well as help prevent future gameplay and balance blunders.

I can't guarantee anything, nobody can. Don't let anyone tell you different.
CCP can become completely disagreeable with the CSM on a whim if they so choose. No actions past, present, or future, are set in stone.


Except they won't oblige. Look at the drama around Incarna, and that part of CCP simply walking away. Keep in mind there is no single "CCP", there's many people in it. Some who want to make the dream, and others who just see it as a private ticket to status, and others who have long passed that station and who really just want to do new shiny awesome and lolcustomers be damned.

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:10:00 - [14]
 

The ideal team would be a balance of players from different aspects of EVE.
Each delegate has their own opinions which reflect those who support their background, whereas the overarching goal between all would be to agree upon improvements to the fundamentals of the game.

Beyond this, CCP has their own agenda with new features. Feature specifics are largely unknown, so a team specifically tailored to handle NEW EVE STUFF is not the way to go.
Having representatives from all walks of EVE-life should ensure the CSMs ability to handily tackle whatever CCP throws on the table.

The CSM is supposed to represent the best and brightest that the EVE community chooses to represent their concerns.
With that said, I feel it's important for candidates to have a firm grasp on the game issues at hand, not trying to grab at ones out of reach, non-existant, or meta.

SXyWhile
Gallente
Echo Roaming Industries
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:17:00 - [15]
 

Not supporting a terrible crybaby of a pilot that Prometheus is. Supporting another candidate who isn't a ******. Thank you for your time.

- S

iP0D
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:21:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal
I feel it's important for candidates to have a firm grasp on the game issues at hand, not trying to grab at ones out of reach, non-existant, or meta.


Ok, serious question. How are you going to approach it, when you find out that the people making the decisions on game issues large and small have absolutely no affinity of what you are saying. For example, because they haven't played in years, have moved on and have zero care, are merely interested in using EVE as a platform for shiny new things, or only play one tiny little piece of the game because that is all they know.

Obviously that is a worst case scenario. We've seen that there's a renewed will of CCP to balance acquisition and retention, but with a fixd roadmap, and limited resources, how will you argue the case.


Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:42:00 - [17]
 

I don't agree with *limited resources*. CCP can delegate resources whenever and wherever they want.
I get that CCP is a company looking to expand and make money, and nothing gets more attention than new features.
The flip-side to that is keeping all those people you grabbed in the beginning.

CCP seems to employ a system similar to cabals, I'm confident that having a team of developers dedicated to only balance and maintenance is not a gigantic issue considering how little the teams effect and communicate with each other. The trick isn't getting a team together, but deciding what they take on and in what order.

At any rate, CSM5 got the ball rolling, and CCP appears to listen. Here's hoping they can keep it up Exclamation

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 01:32:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Two Shots on 26/02/2011 01:32:56
edit: broke up my wall of text


Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal
The ideal team would be a balance of players from different aspects of EVE.
Each delegate has their own opinions which reflect those who support their background, whereas the overarching goal between all would be to agree upon improvements to the fundamentals of the game.



This is where I stopped reading.

What you are saying is that the best way for the Council of Stellar Management to present a unified voice to CCP in regards to things that should be addressed is for every person on the council to have a different idea of what should be addressed. Perhaps somewhere in rainbow fairy-tale land, where true democracy is enforced by some sort of benevolent God-Wizard, that is true. If that were the world in which we lived, then there would be no starving kids in Africa.

The only power that the CSM has to influence CCP is to react as a sounding board. If the response to an idea pitched to the CSM by CCP is met with a smattering of "HELL YEAH!" and "HELL NO!" and everything in-between (including complete apathy), then CCP can rightfully say, 'Game Mechanic Idea C7XF41 has met with approval from the CSM and we will be working to find ways to implement it with the next major patch'. What is hoped for in The Mittani's stance, which is probably a long-shot to be honest, is that by presenting a unified and cohesive response to ideas pitched by CCP, the CSM can stonewall 'bad ideas' and overwhelmingly support 'good ideas'. In order for this to work, then the CSM needs to as a group agree on what general criteria exist for deciding whether Game Mechanic Idea C7XF41 is a 'good idea' or a 'bad idea'.

You will not get that from a split council, where Candidate A is a small-gang Low-Sec PVPer who wants to make High-Sec less safe and remove some of the advantages of 0.0 space, where Candidate B does nothing but run Level 4 missions in a Deadspace-fit Raven Navy Issue all day, where Candidate C is an ultra-billionaire Jita tycoon who sees the game as a giant spreadsheet in space, where Candidate D is the average 0.0 space citizen who rats in a Drake to pay for his PVP costs, where Candidate E is the leader of a space alliance that focuses on mining and research in High-Sec, where Candidate F is a role-player who wants the primary focus of the game to shift towards walking-in-stations and character customization, where Candidate G has a hard-on for 'the good old days' of nano-fit blaster ships and elite ~wulfpax~ in 0.0 and who hates the very idea of Incarna, and so on. This is not a unified voice. It cannot be. Their interests are diametrically opposed. The only way there is even a slight chance that the CSM will be able to present a unified voice is for the individual people on that council to have generally aligned ideas.

The way to win the game in this day in age isn't just to set everyone blue; it's to get those blues elected to the CSM.

Duncan Tanner
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.26 01:39:00 - [19]
 

Good luck Prom! You have all of Genos supporting you!

Shiroi Okami
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.26 01:43:00 - [20]
 

You have my vote. I think especially from the recent changes to rockets, it's proof enough that CCP does listen eventually to the player base, and as you say, persistence is key. All of the changes you suggest are necessary and would be welcome

Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.02.26 08:32:00 - [21]
 

@ Two Shots:
I'm not someone who knows every single aspect of the game.
Nobody does. I can't tell you the most effective/safest/fastest way to mine arkanor; but I'm sure someone can.
Would you want me working to make mining interesting at the cost of all of its current mechanics? No.
I make no claims to know everything about eve. I know pvp, and I know it well.

In the same vein, voting in a single block of players viewing the game from the same perspective is a bad idea since that view becomes horribly biased.
The CSM is supposed to be a collection of the best opinions and views from different aspects of eve; not one view from whatever powerblock that happens to have enough players willing to vote for 'the cause'. The CSM is supposed to work for ALL players, not THEIR players.

Sure my idea of the CSM may seem a little too naive for some, but it doesnt mean its not worth trying for.
If you don't put any effort into it, how can you expect to get any results? If a problem isn't made known, then how can they try for a solution?
Even a denial of suggestions is better than nothing at all. Personally, I would rather have a varied team of people who actually know the mechanics of eve, than some people who just talk.

There are plenty of problems beyond what I mention in my platform, but it's not my job to act like I know everything that's wrong.
I stand tall by my decisions, and I'm just hoping that those voting can see that. The CSM has worked hard (even if you don't see it), and throwing away votes to those who don't really have any direction is not the way to go.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 08:42:00 - [22]
 

i unironically enjoy your videos

souhyeahright
Posted - 2011.02.26 10:16:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: souhyeahright on 26/02/2011 10:19:33
Originally by: Two Shots
Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal
The ideal team would be a balance of players from different aspects of EVE.
Each delegate has their own opinions which reflect those who support their background, whereas the overarching goal between all would be to agree upon improvements to the fundamentals of the game.



This is where I stopped reading.

What you are saying is that the best way for the Council of Stellar Management to present a unified voice to CCP in regards to things that should be addressed is for every person on the council to have a different idea of what should be addressed. Perhaps somewhere in rainbow fairy-tale land, where true democracy is enforced by some sort of benevolent God-Wizard, that is true. If that were the world in which we lived, then there would be no starving kids in Africa.

This is stupid. The most effective thing the CSM has ever done was uniting around the 'Excellence' issue - an issue initially proposed by a director of Eve Uni and then driven forwards by a lowsec pirate and two members of relatively minor nullsec alliances. If you honestly believe that people with different experiences and perspectives on the game cannot work together on issues that are obviously important to everyone who plays, your position is flatly contradicted by the facts. If your position is that there should be no room for dissent whatsoever on any issue, even those on which the playerbase is split, then you're arguing for an unrepresentative and pointless council of yes-men, which is guaranteed to sink back into irrelevance post haste.

Anyway, +1 vote for prom.

Lady Shaniqua
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.26 11:15:00 - [24]
 

You have my vote prom

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.26 11:55:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Raimo on 26/02/2011 11:55:47


And my Axe!



....Erhm, sorry. But in all seriousness, I wouldn't like anything more than to get a real soloer (and a good one) to have a few words with :CCP:

The solo and small gang gameplay of EVE is still quite awesome and unique in the world of gaming, on a good moment nothing can compare really. CCP seems to have long ago forgotten that they even have such a thing - somebody needs to remind them and stop them from (inadvertedly?) grinding it down. Prom has my vote.

Meridith Akesia
Stimulus
Posted - 2011.02.26 12:13:00 - [26]
 

I have 17 votes can i help?

Captain'o'Captain
Posted - 2011.02.26 12:25:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Captain''o''Captain on 26/02/2011 12:32:24
I hate taking the position of the fanboy but I can't stand the goon propaganda anymore :P

Two Shots, you're somewhat correct. CSM is bringing our voice, the voice of the eve players regarding game features or problems to the ears of the devs, and who's best suited for that job then our almighty alliance leaders?

The problem with your whole line of argument is that you presume Mr. Mittani to be a good CSM candidate. I mean he is a leader of an alliance, would he find the time to commit to CSM? In times of peace ye sure, but what if war comes down your way where would his priorities be? We see all the time how entire alliances fail because their leader was away from eve, most recent being IT. Do alliance leaders even know what we, the small folks, are struggling with and if they don't, how can they react correctly to a proposed feature that would, or could affect the life of the lil folks?

The Mittani himself said "The CSM does not implement features. Itís a sounding board for CCP." The question here is, how would a decadent, and slightly delusional if I may add, Alliance leader know the right sound when it comes to PvP ships? I mean http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=15309 (Mittani's eve-kill stats) is that what some one who you would say has vast knowledge in pvp? New tiers of t3 ships and/or modules are bound to come out soon, how would some one like mittani be even remotely able to comprehend their impact on the battlefield, let alone give useful feedback to the game designers. We already have Seleene (http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=3443) to represent the broad alliance leadership perspective of eve, how's The Mittani viewpoint any different.

The sheer fact that you feel is necessary to publicly discredit a candidate who represents the cries of the lowsec/smallscale pvp community is pathetic. Come to think about it, that's just what a goon is, do we want the leader of the goons in CSM? really? The same goons who scamm the simple folks like you with fees to join their corp and goons who con the hard working couriers with empire like names of their stations. Sure it's fun to read how stupid some folks are, but then you get to think about it. It's not the people who know any better, it's the new and innocent folks who fall for their tricks. I'll leave you with that one last bit of mind, how much better do you really think a goon is, then the average Jita scammer.

I for one endorse the commitment that comes from the simple player base, players who don't have 10,000 goons to do their bidding and must struggle with the shortcomings of eve by themselves. Who is best to give clear and accurate evaluation of the PvP performance of a ship then the pilot who's been flying it alone, bravely against impossible odds in combat, with great skill I may add.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.26 14:21:00 - [28]
 

Well I think I just found the second candidate to spend some votes on.

Laedy
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.26 14:59:00 - [29]
 

About time!

PROM FOR CSM!

ImmaSplodeYou
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.02.26 23:27:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: ImmaSplodeYou on 26/02/2011 23:27:36
Doesn't seem like a terrible campaign, good luck


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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