I am not trying to sabotage 1.0 systems
In Austria, newspapers openly celebrate this as a fact by admiring how well trained politicians are with rethorik and body language. No one thinks about it, everyone just thinks this is how it works and should be.
1 Like
When I first read this thread I thought nonsense. Now its 29d old and I find this thread fascinating.
1 Like
I have no idea why you would even entertain the idea that someone supporting Star citizen would be angered by an eve player. First Star citizen is in Alpha and neither game is a threat to the other.
Itās interesting how the gameās being sabotaged when it kicks the bears, but itās not being sabotaged when it caters to them. Ironically, thatās exactly what began in 2013 and ended last year with the black out.
1 Like
Can you show us on the doll where the scary bear touched you?
2 Likes
Indeed Red Dots are horrific!! Some of the worst changes ever added to Eve in the past year! Good post
1 Like
I beleive it. Trig invasions no warning and dead ship worth almost a billion in a .7 green area. If I dont get reimbursed just deleting this 2014 toon. Have that for dessert.
Can I have your stuff?
1 Like
do either include sliced prunus serotina?
Very funny that some people really seem to think CCP had any āgoodā ideas since falcon leftā¦
1 Like
thatās what happens when you donāt pay attention. Pro tip: invasion systems take on an odd hue and the HUD reflects the status by displaying weird trangular characters.
āInvasionā shouldnāt happen AT ALLā¦
Itās just live to actually KILL all trade,all pve and all non pvp action in this game and make high sec ripe for picking and to split high sec between the ātrig sector of spaceā and the null sec blocksā¦the null sec blocks will be the only players left in this game because pve is already leaving in massesā¦
space is hostile, yanno. It will use the slightest opportunity to kill you. A micrometeoroid smashes through a wall and out the other side. You warp through a planet. An NPC dunks you on a gateā¦
Whereās the salt over Sansha incursions? Theyāre infinitely nastier than NPC mining response fleets or even Tiglavians (both of which Iāve successfully fought off in an Orca - hell, I used to solo emerging conduits in an Orca). Theyāre equally as easy to avoid by scouting ahead and planning routes around affected systems.
LOL
Againā¦
Have i said LOOOL?
Destroying a game,the ONLY game this company has by scaring 2/3 of your playerbase from the server is a āgoodā idea in your eyes?
stepping up the destruction and stirring the pot which has become stagnant and fat on resources for the past several years? Yes, it is a good idea. Any CCP reps monitoring this thread can tell us about player retention?
The message from CCP is: this is a PVP sandbox, first and foremost, and there isnāt enough PVP. The increase in PVE interaction is intended to redress the balance.
There are other games out there if all you want to do is accumulate stuff. Or, you could do it in EVE by flying to Jita and never undocking from 4-4.
Dude is this ironic?
It must be because again : This company is LOOSING 2/3 of their customers because of really really really bad ceo decisions and you STILL defend this?
Because the null blocks will āwin the game at lastā?
Really?
I mean REALLY?
Must be some kind of irony i donāt getā¦
3 Likes
Iāll say it again: Letās have the monthly player retention numbers from CCP, thatāll either prove or disprove what youāre claiming. Until then, I have a large pot of salt.
Those shiny little āmonthly numbersā are just a fraudā¦they just take the highest number of a day and calculate a 30 day āaverageā with it instead of calculating an average of the DAY and use THAT number for the 30 day calculation(which would result in a significant LOWER number of āplayersā)ā¦
Certainly this is beside the fact that those number do not show WHAT the players are actually DOINGā¦
Do they actively play(should count to the daily number) or just managing their skill(should not,because they are not āplaying the gameā)?
For this reason alone the monthly update is simply wrong on purposeā¦