Lol you got him good. Well said.
If you read what I said I am asking for two things, to make it more expensive by being less certain to use Catalysts by p[lacing a new module in Freighters with a choice for the player to have one to make their warp speed greater, as in choice. And to remove certain nerfs that have severely gimped AG play, and to look to add some buffs that would make AG more fun and rewarding.
You just chanting back at me that I want to end ganking is just feeble.
That was feeble too.
The ganker haters proposals only ever outline how the current balance should be shifted. They never outline how to change the play so their is something more for both sides.
They never propose - make the engagement mechanics more favourable to anti-gankers and more favourable to gankers.
It’s always for example, along the lines of - make the engagements mechanics more favourable to anti-gankers, before mechanics favourable to gankers are looked at.
It’s always been that way and always will be that way. The balance is never ok, no matter what CCP implement and it always needs changes to directly nerf ganking or buff other play that will also result in a nerf to ganking.
They are just dishonest enough that they lie about the impqct.
3 Likes
Do you even read before you write that tosh? Ever since you failed to understand that BM thing you just went pretty loopy.
Did you know that game balance is an ever changing thing…, Medium structures are one such example, they have been balanced into being worthless for example or balanced so that only people with seriously deep pockets can afford the loss rate. That is an example of game balance.
Dracvlad please.
This thread is just you contradicting yourself over and over.
Firts the original post was great and that CCP should read it an take note. Untill we established that you dont agree with any of the recommendations.
Then you made posts about ganking being pretty well balanced and also stated ganking is in decline.
While then going on to suggest ways that it should be made more difficult.
Im all for anything that makes for more interaaction in space. Scroll back to the beginning of the thread where i even mentioned you in a section of text where i suggested that reducing the time concord takes to respond just leads to n+1 gameplay and wont make that big a difference. Whereas increasing it may have interesting effects. 1 gankers wont need to bring as much ships……less n+1. And AG would have time to actually get into the engagement and do something meaningful.
But that point in the thread im pretty sure you were still to busy getting all behind an anti ganking thread full of nonsense to have a reasonable discussion 
4 Likes
The problem is, not only do I read, but also understand the impact. I could have more expressively written, The ganker haters proposals only ever outline how the current balance should be shifted in one direction. Never any other way but ways that will nerf ganking.
Lol. That’s hilarious and hilarious that you keep bringing it up and still can’t see what a stupid statement it was.
I have not contradicted myself at all, I am very clear on what I wrote. You just don’t have the wit to understand it and are now deflecting on CONCORD response time for some reason?
I see the sleight of hand there, but your hang up on the word exact was a hilarious deflection from your own lack of knowledge and understanding of that mechanic. I have shown that exchange to several people who asked me about it, and their perception of you went down. As far as I am concerned your went loopy, and more importantly they agreed with me.
Deflecting? Its a key part of the original post which you said CCP should read and take note of.
1 Like
I suggest exactly what I think, explain it in detail over several posts, and you ignore it and keep deflecting. Nice try, but…, boring…
Im not ignoring it. Im pointing out how you are being inconsistent.
You are either deliberately playing games or you are a bad communicator.
And given how many times i ask you to clarify what you are saying when you write contradictory statements and you outright refuse…….suggests the former.
You can say or think what you want about me but you cant deny that I give plenty opportunities to clarify what you mean/ what you think on topics etc. Your refusal to do that is your own issue and simply contributes to the general feeling that comes across in all the replies to you. People dont believe you.
5 Likes
And here we go again, deflection against the person now. Do you ever get bored with this type of forum play?
this isnt deflection. This is asking you to clearly set out your views on ganking in a way that avoids any doubt about where you stand on the subject.
for example whjen you said this…
Did you actually mean it? Because it seems at odds with your support of the original post and your numerous suggestions for changes which penalise gankers further.
It is detailed above, and your personal attack posts and deflections don’t change that fact.
But nice use of a variation on the you want to end ganking post at the end there.
And we even get a Destiny being Destiny post too.
Thats just deflecting.
No sleight of hand. They are your words, not mine (and “exact” wasn’t the issue, which just demonstrates that after all these years, you still miss the fundamental problem with your statement) and the mechanics are easy to understand, you were just wrong about them. But the butthurt has certainly been flowing from your fingers for several years now, which is just crazy - loopy even.
˙ ˙ ˙ɥǝH
2 Likes
Quoted so I can show that to people. Thanks for that.
There is a post above where I detailed it, you just ignored it, or read it and did not understand it, who knows.
Let me explain this very simply. I have an imaginary friend called Tommy. I like Tommy. We talk about stuff and he tells me im his hero.
On Saturday Tommy told me that he had an amazing holiday in Paris. But on Sunday Tommy told me he had never been to France. Now i dont know if i can trust Tommy because.
Just because you write something today doesnt mean I take it seriously. Especially when it contradicts things you said yesterday or last week. :).
Deflecting again with a personal attack, how wonderful, it is up there where I detailed the balance side of things, you only have to read it and put some grey matter to work, but you do an attack post. Go read it.
Tommy must have been at the Champions League final…