open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (43)

Author Topic

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 16:51:00 - [271]
 

Edited by: oilio on 23/08/2008 16:51:49
Bottom line:

Do you accept that eve is a "sandbox" game where people can play in any style they want? (including JUST doing PvE if they want to?)

Do you accept that people grind missions for ISK for game time cards?

Do you accept that nerfing empire missions will result in significant lost revenue for CCP and therefore reduced development/hardware funding?

Do you accept that people being forced into low-sec will result in a turkey-shoot, and that for many mission runners the rewards will not be sufficient to replace mission running ships lost to pirates?

If you don't, then please explain why this will not be so.

If you do, then you're basically saying that Eve should be PvP - not "sandbox" and that people should play the game YOUR way - even if that means significantly fewer people playing and CCP's business suffering.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.23 17:11:00 - [272]
 

Edited by: Ruze on 23/08/2008 17:10:51
Do you accept that eve is a "sandbox" game where people can play in any style they want? (including JUST doing PvE if they want to?)

- I do accept that EvE is a sandbox and that players can do JUST PvE. I also accept that those players are still subject to PvP, if initiated by others. It's a sandbox for them, too.


Do you accept that people grind missions for ISK for game time cards?

- I do accept that people do this. I also accept that though I don't like it, it works. And that players do this a number of ways, including grinding rats, complexes, mining and moon mining.



Do you accept that nerfing empire missions will result in significant lost revenue for CCP and therefore reduced development/hardware funding?

- No. I think this is opinion, and is not 'fact'. I don't think nerfing missions will run off that many players, just as I don't think changing hisec to 100% pvp-free will run off that many players. EvE is too strong for LITTLE changes like that to hurt it significantly.


Do you accept that people being forced into low-sec will result in a turkey-shoot, and that for many mission runners the rewards will not be sufficient to replace mission running ships lost to pirates?

- You can't be forced anywhere. I do accept that providing incentives for going into losec will increase the number of players there, and will eventually decrease the number of pirates. I don't believe that currently losec can fund players who lose equipment to pirates or wars. I DO believe that if the current 'status quo' of missions is kept as it is, there can be no real level of incentive added to losec that won't in turn imbalance nulsec. And I do believe that no matter what you add to hisec, if a player is convinced that he cannot survive, he won't go into losec. Only when he has the choice between 'safety' and 'profit' can he really convince himself that it's worth a try.

Feilamya
Pain Elemental
Posted - 2008.08.23 17:27:00 - [273]
 

The poster some posts above didn't get the whole sandbox thing, so it's a waste of time discussing it with him.

I would recommend that he reads the player guide again, especially the sandbox part.
Hint: It certainly does NOT mean that every player can play in his own sandbox without having to worry about other players.

By his understanding of a sandbox, WoW would be a sandbox too.

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:15:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: Feilamya

By his understanding of a sandbox, WoW would be a sandbox too.


Nope, I do understand about sandbox.

WoW is much less of a sandbox because players are basically funnelled along a very limited number of set paths. On a WoW PvE server, PvP combat is completely optional. You are GUARANTEED not to get in a fight unless you specifically want to. This is not true in Eve, and I hope it never will be, but that's NOTHING to do with L4 mission running. Nerfing High Sec L4 missions will NOT force more people into PvP. The only thing it will achieve is a reduction in the number of subscribers.

EvE is a sandbox because a player can take almost ANY path.

This includes AVOIDING combat, if the player so chooses. The player isn't guaranteed to be able to avoid combat, of course, but they can play in such a style as to avoid it as much as possible.

What you guys REALLY want is for mission runners to be forced into situations - FORCED - into situations where they can be preyed upon by so-called "PvP" players.

You don't want to see low sec buffed, because players would have the OPTION of chasing higher rewards for greater risk.

You want to see high sec nerfed, so that players have the choice of either becoming pirate fodder in order to make an income (wouldn't work), or quit, or have a much reduced income.

So much for sandbox. If you're not dedicated to combat, then you'll get nowhere...

but Eve isn't ALL about combat. That's Counter-Strike or Unreal Tournament. Eve is about trading, mining, mission running, industry, piracy, territorial wars, extortion, exploration...

Many people want to stay in empire and do their thing there. WHY THE HELL NOT?

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:19:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Feilamya

By his understanding of a sandbox, WoW would be a sandbox too.


Nope, I do understand about sandbox.

WoW is much less of a sandbox because players are basically funnelled along a very limited number of set paths. On a WoW PvE server, PvP combat is completely optional. You are GUARANTEED not to get in a fight unless you specifically want to. This is not true in Eve, and I hope it never will be, but that's NOTHING to do with L4 mission running. Nerfing High Sec L4 missions will NOT force more people into PvP. The only thing it will achieve is a reduction in the number of subscribers.

EvE is a sandbox because a player can take almost ANY path.

This includes AVOIDING combat, if the player so chooses. The player isn't guaranteed to be able to avoid combat, of course, but they can play in such a style as to avoid it as much as possible.

What you guys REALLY want is for mission runners to be forced into situations - FORCED - into situations where they can be preyed upon by so-called "PvP" players.

You don't want to see low sec buffed, because players would have the OPTION of chasing higher rewards for greater risk.

You want to see high sec nerfed, so that players have the choice of either becoming pirate fodder in order to make an income (wouldn't work), or quit, or have a much reduced income.

So much for sandbox. If you're not dedicated to combat, then you'll get nowhere...

but Eve isn't ALL about combat. That's Counter-Strike or Unreal Tournament. Eve is about trading, mining, mission running, industry, piracy, territorial wars, extortion, exploration...

Many people want to stay in empire and do their thing there. WHY THE HELL NOT?


You're pretty clueless. If your playstyle is avoiding combat, good on you. That does not mean is should be easy or profitable. If you want to avoid combat and still be profitable, you should have to do it in an area where combat is a real possibility. There's no sport in avoiding combat in an area where you can't engage in combat except for a few exceptions.

So basically, you haven't understood the meaning of 'sandbox'.

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:23:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Ki An


So basically, you haven't understood the meaning of 'sandbox'.



and now we get to the fundamental issue.

To Ki'An (and fellows) sandbox=combat

I wish CCP would state their position on this. It might differ from yours.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:27:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Ki An


So basically, you haven't understood the meaning of 'sandbox'.



and now we get to the fundamental issue.

To Ki'An (and fellows) sandbox=combat

I wish CCP would state their position on this. It might differ from yours.


Read my post again. You can play this game and avoid combat. That does not mean that it should be easy for you to both avoid combat and make loads of isk at the same time. Avoiding combat becomes a valid playstyle when combat is a threat. It's not in high sec. If you say "suicide gankers" now I'm going to personally pod you.

Basically, sandbox means you can do whatever you want. It does NOT mean you can do whatever you want in safety.

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:35:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Ki An


Read my post again. You can play this game and avoid combat. That does not mean that it should be easy for you to both avoid combat and make loads of isk at the same time. Avoiding combat becomes a valid playstyle when combat is a threat. It's not in high sec. If you say "suicide gankers" now I'm going to personally pod you.

Basically, sandbox means you can do whatever you want. It does NOT mean you can do whatever you want in safety.



No, suicide ganks don't really count for much once the CONCORD change is implemented.

Maybe kick older players from NPC corps into militia or something - maybe the risk needs looking at in high sec, but the risk/reward balance in low sec just won't work as things stand. Too much risk for a mission runner. It WILL be a turkey shoot. Mission runners WILL lose more ships than they can afford to replace from running missions, and (in my opinion) many of them will simply quit.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:36:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: oilio
[To Ki'An (and fellows) sandbox=combat
Basically, sandbox means you can do whatever you want. It does NOT mean you can do whatever you want in safety.

…or, more specifically, a sandbox means you can do what you want but it also means that others can also do what they want to you.

If you want to limit what they can do to you (e.g. be safe from PvP), you must also accept that you cannot do everything you want either (e.g. make piles of ISK through PvE).

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:40:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: oilio
No, suicide ganks don't really count for much once the CONCORD change is implemented.

Maybe kick older players from NPC corps into militia or something - maybe the risk needs looking at in high sec, but the risk/reward balance in low sec just won't work as things stand. Too much risk for a mission runner. It WILL be a turkey shoot. Mission runners WILL lose more ships than they can afford to replace from running missions, and (in my opinion) many of them will simply quit.


Exactly, which is why I and others are lobbying for a boost to low sec to complement the nerf to high sec.

Trathen
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:44:00 - [281]
 

"Sandbox" specifically means that players are free to set their own goals within the confines of the game world. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not other players should be free to "bother" you. It also holds that a good sandbox game would ensure that many common goals would be challenging. A large chunk of people set their goal to "make more ISK than everyone else" (yawn). Needless to say, if bumbling through easy mode missions is the way to achieve that goal, it really has nothing to do with the "sandbox" concept itself. It's just a ****ty sandbox.

That said, running missions is little-league ISK generation compared to some true entrepreneurs of EvE. I think if anyone deserved to be upset about missioners, it would be miners. Have we heard from them?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:49:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Trathen
I think if anyone deserved to be upset about missioners, it would be miners. Have we heard from them?
Yes. They want to nerf the mineral output possible through ratting and missioning.

Trathen
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.08.23 18:54:00 - [283]
 

Edited by: Trathen on 23/08/2008 18:54:45
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Trathen
I think if anyone deserved to be upset about missioners, it would be miners. Have we heard from them?
Yes. They want to nerf the mineral output possible through ratting and missioning.


It makes sense to me. Honestly I have no experience in mining to make that judgement. Mission-running raises an eyebrow for me once in a while, but I do find it charming you can literally "kick someone's ass all the way back to carebear land."

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:14:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: oilio
Edited by: oilio on 23/08/2008 16:51:49
Bottom line:

Do you accept that eve is a "sandbox" game where people can play in any style they want? (including JUST doing PvE if they want to?)




That's fine, they just don't get the fat rewards if they do so.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:22:00 - [285]
 

Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 23/08/2008 19:24:04

Oh look, Ki An decided to start posting with his main. Serious business ITT! Laughing

Anyhow.

I'll try once more just to put across the point from my perspective of why level 4's are a problem in Eve.

- People won't like to hear this line brought up again ... RISK VERSUS REWARD... did I hear a groan?

I know certain ones of you like to come up with real life examples of why an increasing risk to a larger reward doesn't work.

(Although I don't know how this was figured out, as I can do the same thing to validate this using a different real life example. Such as certain ancient explorers, wars and crusades, etc... and how an established large populace in one small place may prosper the resources are still divided between many... whatever though I think maybe you can pull anything out your ass by comparing it to real life)

Back to the point, risk versus reward.

Level 4 missions done correctly can earn you around 20 million isk an hour, in addition to lets say around 15 million in salvage and loot at the same time. Aswell as the loyalty points worth around 4 million lets say.

What amount is too much you may say? Well in fact it's nothing to do with how much the level 4 mission runners earn at the moment.

It's the ratio that's the problem, the fact that they earn more or the same as similarly challenging or dangerous tasks, a near zero risk unlimited farmable resource on tap that is also the problem.

You could make the rewardss for level 4 mission running a lot lower, but that doesn't really help that much, look at mining.

Mining - Pointless unless deep in nullsec in the right places. Guess who all the people are that do highsec mining? Yup, noobs or metagamers using 3-4 accounts or people who are semi afk while watching tv or something 95% of the time.

Do we really want to encourage this type of playstyle in eve?

As we see from mining, another sleep inducing grind/farm fest of epic dullness in highsec where you disengage your brain and waste precious manhours of your life mining electronic rocks trying to outdo robot sweatshop farmers on the market.

Yet if we add scarcity to eve mining, if we remove all the belt bookmarks make people need to explore for fewer asteroids that when found, that either mine time times faster, or yield 10 times as much minerals from a small easily depletable belts, whereas you have to keep looking for more other small easily depletable belts.. then mining finally starts to become more interesting and worthwhile.

I think something as different and radical needs to be done to missions. I think some form of scarcity factor needs to be applied aswell as mission interaction that needs a non afk human intelligence to make judgement on, rather then brainless KILL KILL KILL on missions on which you know exactly what will happen and in what order before you've even accepted it from your agent.

e.g

1. Missions against the clock where you have to find something in a certain amount of time or you will fail.

2. Missions where you must solve some sort of question or riddle so you can choose the right gate to proceed. The wrong one leading to certain death for your ship.

Level 4's atm are abhorable for me. I can't stand doing them but I need the easy free isk printing service it offers from time to time.

Level 4's being a safety net for people down on their luck being the only decent argument I've heard for them too.

But highsec with suicide ganking and wardecs being nerf is in danger of turning into a stagnant zombie grind pool, and needs something exciting injecting into it for once.

Max Warg
Caldari
Chosen Path
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:23:00 - [286]
 

Who cares what Lv4's are doing. Just go do what you want and this is comming from some one lives in 0.0.


Dead horse stop whiping it...............4 years over and over

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:34:00 - [287]
 

Edited by: Andrue on 23/08/2008 19:39:14
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Andrue
They have been steadily nerfed over the last year. High metalevel items are becoming increasingly rare. I run missions for some 2 hours a day during the week and I can go an entire week - maybe two weeks without once picking up a valuable item in loot.


No, they haven't been nerfed. High metalevel items have become rare, yes. However, you instead get an extremely high supply of raw minerals in the veritable truck loads of T1 junk that is dropped. You also get salvage totalling up to 15 millions in the best missions. You get loyalty points by the boatloads, and since one of the many recent mission boosts, you can now pick and chose which rediculously underpriced faction item you want from the loyalty point store.

When I started running missions back in 2006 your standard rewards was 1mil + 10 cargo expander Is as a time bonus. Or, how about 1.5 mil and 150 militia? Yes, you got crappy unsellable junk instead of the raw isk you get now. Now that's another mission boost.

So, all in all, high sec missioning have gotten boost after boost after boost, and you complain about the fact that high meta level items don't drop as much anymore?

My God!

I don't complain about because I'm one of the rich gits in this game. I do however hold it up as an example of how L4 rewards have dropped somewhat over the last year. Loot/salvage is no longer a valuable part of missioning. The returns are nearly always lower than you'll get from the next mission. The amounts of ammo obtained through looting are useful for ammo but that's about all..and it's more cost effective to just start the next mission and buy your mins from the market.

The difference has not been a huge drop but I would estimate between 10% and 15% less Isk per hour from L4.

..and as for the LP, lol! The value of LP went into freefall a while back. It's levelled out now but you have a choice:Sell a lot of things for a poor Isk/LP ratio or a few things for a decent ratio. Either way if you get more than 500 Isk/LP you're doing well. 18 months ago it was 3,000 Isk/LP.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:38:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Max Warg
Who cares what Lv4's are doing.
Anyone who's affected by what they do to the market, i.e. everyone.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:40:00 - [289]
 

Since when are the loots not valuable from l4 missions? Every battleship I blow up that's usually worth between 500k and 1.2 million tends to drop a large turret worth 1 million isk more the half the time.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:43:00 - [290]
 

But the important point that so many people are still not getting:

A significant number of people will not go into low/null-sec no matter what you do. This is a game and the carebears know that more than anyone. They also have the least attachment and investment to the game. If you disrupt their high-sec experience they will just leave. That will hurt this game, possibly fatally.

Bottom line:No solution you propose that involves 'forcing' or 'coercing' carebears will fail and most likely damage the game.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:45:00 - [291]
 

Edited by: Andrue on 23/08/2008 19:45:56
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Since when are the loots not valuable from l4 missions? Every battleship I blow up that's usually worth between 500k and 1.2 million tends to drop a large turret worth 1 million isk more the half the time.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. I'd estimate that one in three battleships drops loot. And the typical value is around 400k.

I loot/salvage because it's a break between missions. My Golem rarely picks up more than 1,500m3 of loot and salvage. Most of the time it barely goes above 1,000m3.

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:48:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Since when are the loots not valuable from l4 missions? Every battleship I blow up that's usually worth between 500k and 1.2 million tends to drop a large turret worth 1 million isk more the half the time.


If you're running those missions in high sec, please tell me where.

1 MILLION in loot for OVER HALF the battleship drops?

Sorry man, but if you're claiming that happens in empire missions then you're lying.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:52:00 - [293]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 23/08/2008 19:54:43
Originally by: Andrue
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Since when are the loots not valuable from l4 missions? Every battleship I blow up that's usually worth between 500k and 1.2 million tends to drop a large turret worth 1 million isk more the half the time.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. I'd estimate that one in three battleships drops loot. And the typical value is around 400k.
One in three, you say? So about the same ratio as the number of BS:es with a bounty that approaches a million?

How much the turrets are worth varies with the region, the season, whether the moon is in retrograde etc etc etc, but I'd say Dizzy is about right on the number of turrets those BS:es drop.
Originally by: oilio
Sorry man, but if you're claiming that happens in empire missions then you're lying.
Find a better agent?

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:52:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Since when are the loots not valuable from l4 missions? Every battleship I blow up that's usually worth between 500k and 1.2 million tends to drop a large turret worth 1 million isk more the half the time.


Each player rates 'value' differently. To some, the money made in level 4's is crap. To others, it's considerable.

Right now, level 4 missions are the easiest and all around best money I can make for my time and effort. Not to say that you can't make better. Surely you can. Level 4 mission rewards are crazy-weak against the paycheck of a professional trader, or a solo moon miner, or a dedicated T2 producer, or a corp CEO who rip-off/taxes his fellow corp-mates. And besides the moon mining, all of those can be done in hisec.

There's lots' of ways to make money in this game. As a combat pilot, it's either missioning in hisec, missioning/complex running in losec, or missioning/complex running/ratting in nulsec. And with that ratio, I know that missioning in losec hasn't been worth my time and effort (too much logistics for the rewards), I've found that ratting in nulsec ain't worth my time and is boring as hell (again, rewards are good, but logistics is a nightmare). I need to try out complexes, and I can only spout off rumors and heresay, but the rumors I hear are that the losec complexes are junk. Whatever.

Oh, and there's pirating. Which I refuse to do, because I'm against it on a moral level. That's just my personal way of living, though.

Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:32:00 - [295]
 

I had a sandbox when I was a kid. Stupid neighbor's cat kept crapping in it. I don't think he really cared how I felt about it, from his point of view it was only good for one thing.

Now that I think about it, that cat probably thought I was pretty weird for wanting to hang out where he crapped...


Sumiya Tanaka
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:43:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Ki An


You're pretty clueless. If your playstyle is avoiding combat, good on you. That does not mean is should be easy or profitable. If you want to avoid combat and still be profitable, you should have to do it in an area where combat is a real possibility. There's no sport in avoiding combat in an area where you can't engage in combat except for a few exceptions.



And finally the mask comes off.

This is the agenda driving this whole fever pitch whine campaign that you are a core part of, Ki. Even other more reasonable types like Malcanis are now openly calling into question the "PVE mindset".

Well, there we are.

This is NOT about risks and rewards, folks. This is a debate about the proper nature of the game of EVE Online. It is deep, biiter, intractable philosophical divergence between those who see this as a fundamentally PvP game, on the one hand, and those who see it as a game that should well accomodate both playstyles in ways that are equally rewarding, even when the non-PvP playstyle really *is* a non-PvP playstyle.

So let's finally heave off all of this nonsense about objectivity. This debate isn't about what would be "objectively good for the game". It's a philosophical debate, an old one actually, between the two groups outlined above, and level 4 missions are only the most recent stalking horse for this broader agenda.


Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:52:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Sumiya Tanaka
Originally by: Ki An


You're pretty clueless. If your playstyle is avoiding combat, good on you. That does not mean is should be easy or profitable. If you want to avoid combat and still be profitable, you should have to do it in an area where combat is a real possibility. There's no sport in avoiding combat in an area where you can't engage in combat except for a few exceptions.



And finally the mask comes off.

This is the agenda driving this whole fever pitch whine campaign that you are a core part of, Ki. Even other more reasonable types like Malcanis are now openly calling into question the "PVE mindset".

Well, there we are.

This is NOT about risks and rewards, folks. This is a debate about the proper nature of the game of EVE Online. It is deep, biiter, intractable philosophical divergence between those who see this as a fundamentally PvP game, on the one hand, and those who see it as a game that should well accomodate both playstyles in ways that are equally rewarding, even when the non-PvP playstyle really *is* a non-PvP playstyle.

So let's finally heave off all of this nonsense about objectivity. This debate isn't about what would be "objectively good for the game". It's a philosophical debate, an old one actually, between the two groups outlined above, and level 4 missions are only the most recent stalking horse for this broader agenda.




Waaaaat?

How did you manage to read all that into my post?

Post with your main so I can wardec you for stupidity.

Keiretsu Destroyer
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:56:00 - [298]
 

Me thinks they only post theese kind of stuff to find potential carebear victims for war decs. Smile Well, feast your eyes on my alt, you filthy forum-whining pirate LaughingCool

No, seriously. You don't have to like other people's play style - that's why you have your own way of doing things. And look at your post, my friend. You are not complaining because of what you can get from playing this game, you are whining about what other people have and how they play their game. That's selfish!

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:59:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Keiretsu Destroyer
Me thinks they only post theese kind of stuff to find potential carebear victims for war decs. Smile Well, feast your eyes on my alt, you filthy forum-whining pirate LaughingCool

No, seriously. You don't have to like other people's play style - that's why you have your own way of doing things. And look at your post, my friend. You are not complaining because of what you can get from playing this game, you are whining about what other people have and how they play their game. That's selfish!


Wrong, dear alt. I've already stated multiple times that I run level 4 missions for a living. That fact is easily verifiable by taking a look at the standings tab of my well known alt. I know you don't want to do this as it would effectively shoot your whole theory of "those gosh-darn pirates are only looking for targets" right into the water. Still, in the interest of keeping the debate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks on people's playstyles, I offer this information again.

AB 2006
Posted - 2008.08.23 21:05:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Keiretsu Destroyer
Me thinks they only post theese kind of stuff to find potential carebear victims for war decs. Smile Well, feast your eyes on my alt, you filthy forum-whining pirate LaughingCool

No, seriously. You don't have to like other people's play style - that's why you have your own way of doing things. And look at your post, my friend. You are not complaining because of what you can get from playing this game, you are whining about what other people have and how they play their game. That's selfish!


Indeed. He seems blind to it as well. Oh well. There really isn't any such thing as objectivity in life anyway, it's all an illusion.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (43)

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