No its not.
Rule for one is a rule for all. If its bad gameplay for a PvP fleet to do it, then it was bad when a single miner did it.
No its not.
Rule for one is a rule for all. If its bad gameplay for a PvP fleet to do it, then it was bad when a single miner did it.
i don’t disagree. but it wasn’t bad enough to cause major concern i guess. but regardless. miners won’t be able to save their barge like that any more with this change. nobody will. that’s a good thing. it wasn’t good gameplay in the first place for any ship, miners included, to suddenly vanish when under scramble and fire.
The deep dark secret is that the “leet” PVPers of Eve are the most risk averse of the game.
I once ended up right in front of a 5 man group while coming out of a WH and they all ran because I had enough firepower to take one of them down with me and none of them wanted to risk being the one that went down.
The so-called carebears are are least affording themselves some honesty.
Exploits are exploits, regardless of who is abusing them. Whether it is pirat or someone else is irrelevant.
I must not be leet enough then. I don’t undock my ships without writing them off in advance as having died in a fire. I actually get somewhat upset if they continuously keep living through fleet after fleet. I love those battles where two fleets throw themselves at each other and everyone dies. Now that’s entertainment!
This does not surprise me. It does however, explain why Bowheads and other large, P I R A T-friendly hauling or mining ships seem to hang around the highsec markethubs so much.
I for one am shocked by this blatant breach of e-bushido! Shocked I say!
This is one of the greatest posts ever written of all time. Of all time.
Sarcasm?
No. He means it. Check out some of his posts in this thread.
So what you’re saying …
… is that there should be an aggro timer?
I agree!
No sarcasm. I always find it amusing that it’s always the ‘leet’ who are vehemently opposed to changing ■■■■■■■■ mechanics. Strategic withdrawals are apparently too lame in EVE even when they’re often the wisest move, so if retreat is eliminated from consideration (or is simply not possible) and failure is not desirable, they’d rather cower behind an exploit to stay alive than die with dignity. God forbid they find themselves in a fair fight for once where the outcome is determined by competency and factors other than exploiting undesirable game mechanics. @Herzog_Wolfhammer said it well
Can you give some examples of some of these leets who are always vehemently opposed to changing mechanics?
I think what he means is all of the people that read his post and ask “Why? The current rules work fine.”
That is vehement opposition.
Always the “leet”… so never the not leet?
There are no fair fights in EvE, and neither should there be any.
He didn’t. It is a crap post.
I didn’t even know that it was possible to store ships in mid-combat in a bowhead like that.
Xeux, you’re a codeite, I thought you want people reminded that hi-sec doesn’t mean safe space. Exploiting a bowhead storage loophole to avoid losing blingy ships, while a brilliant move, is the polar opposite of that narrative.
Also the “bowheads are still in danger” ■■■■■■■■ still needs a gank-fleet on standby, which people aren’t just going to have lying around in the average fleet battle. And nobody with half a brain is going to suicide gank in an 800 mil isk battleship or a 600 mil isk logi ship (if the zkill battle report I’m looking at says anything about the amount of isk both sides had out on grid.)
No sir, calling for the rules to be changed because things didn’t go your way is the polar opposite.
Actually it’s not. I’m all for having an aggro timer slapped onto Orcas and Bowheads. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one. That’s just the hate speaking out of you. Now I’m curious what other mechanics you call ■■■■■■■■ and about the reason behind that.
It’s neither an exploit nor a loophole.
You calling it that equals spreading misinformation.
Currently it’s working as intended.