it was brisc’s idea of representing wh’s. or it was a troll post. porpoise for rolling, hell that’s almost as ridiculous as a heavy interdict…er doh!
His response was explaining why the porpoise is not a good ship to roll holes.
You need to cool it dude… It’s getting tiresome now.
1 Like
Ik what he meant. I sought to agree with him. and point out where the idea got its original ‘traction’.
im sorry man, it was all the csm posting in the original thread that brought me here in the first place. its quieted down a fair bit. I reckon I should aswell. 
apologies
1 Like
or just use cheap T1 cruier / hauler hulls with the risk it will be closed out… no pain no gain
balancing a ship around it being a no risk alternative is just bad
Firstly there is no such thing as a “no risk alternative” when it comes to rolling.
How many times do you null secc’ers need to be told? The cost of the ship is not the issue.
If you guys get stuck somewhere, you self destruct and you’re home in an instant. getting home after being rolled out involves potentially hours of scanning before you can get you pod/character back to where all your assets are.
Hey y’all, regarding my +/- 5% comment, yes there is existing variance and I didn’t really factor that into my comment. What I meant to say is, based on the tone of Rise’s reply, is that CCP could/might give wormholers their toys back but also introduce additional variance to keep their promise while also fulfilling their design goals. Not saying they should, but don’t be surprised if it happens!
1 Like
WHer’s rarely shy away from the natural difficulty of this game we hate to love!
In fact, most of the time we embrace the limitations related to the game mechanics that specifically targets other areas of space and knowing full well how it negatively affects us. I do not know first hand how difficult it would be to find a complete ‘Balance’ in EVE, as I have zero IRL experience related to game design concepts, however what I do know is that the very statement that EVE is created for say one area of space over another is ridiculous and insulting as a fellow gamer.
And just because WHer’s adapted a gaming lifestyle different then the original design plans as well as one that does not shadow the existence of rules and regulations in say Null Sec, doesn’t and should not DEVALUE our type of player base.
I got in trouble (red flagged on forums) once for calling out a NS Recruiter for telling (lying essentially) people that they can only learn this game from the likes of them. Now, I digressed of course as I did not know 100% they were telling a lie…my point is the very thing that stands out more then anything else about the game of EVE (and its original concepts) is that it allows EVERY player to find their own destiny. That to me is the best part of EVE and why I have been playing it over ALL other games since late '08. We should applaud CCP for allowing us to be a part of the original design moving forward, if we didn’t have that this game would be no different then say WOW or other popular genre online games.
And for those that think WHer’s are lesser individuals in EVE space, I hope to see you soon…
@Mr_Glaser ( An Omega player before their was such a thing…)
2 Likes
I wonder when was the last time null seccers needed to adapt…
2 Likes
Fozzysov…
Jump Fatigue
Rorqual’s are goons
Outpost Removal
I don’t know what feel should I feel anymore.
1 Like
Explain the downsides, otherwise there’s no point.
Nullsec is where the (irl) money is. CCP has been working on that ever since they’ve killed highsec, and subsequentially over the last years, the other parts of the game. I am amazed that it still isn’t obvious to everyone at this point.
1 Like
You should read up on the subject, they already vary
Holy crap j space needs to boycott all nullbear csm guys. I’m sure low and high would go along with it if we offer cookies
1 Like
Jesus christ where did that Sandbox spirit go? Instead of the dev team giving player tools to play around with and be creative, now the dev team is looking at emergent behaviour and is trying to turn it back into specific modules that can’t ever go beyond what their intended use was.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s good to try and preserve an emergent behaviour if it’s endangered by a change on a completely unrelated topic… But it’s sad to look at the messiness that makes EVE’s creative ideas and emergent gameplay interesting, and think that this is somehow a bad thing.
4 Likes
Cry more, nerd. Your delicious tears fuel my hate machine.
He’s a politician in real life. You expect his ■■■■ to smell any better online?
lol Just go away.
1 Like
I’m glad this post did away with the ‘collateral damage’ mehmeh and instead went right to;
“It’s not our fault for proposing shitty changes, it’s your fault for not liking them”
A really classy post, and a good way to move forward with a community which clearly feels mistreated.
lmb0
He did say bubble will have a Max speed penalty
where else are there stat ceilings applied to a ship as a result of fitting a module?
there are I/O’s applied, due to some modules (siege/bastion/cloak/etc), or penalties derived from modules themselves. there are penalties tied to fitting multiple modules of the same type…but I honestly cant think of a single instance where a module infers upon its host a maximum that cannot be broken. that is a LAZY adjustment slider; the work of someone incapable of interpreting or properly adjusting ‘stupid things’ like formulas or numbers. or an idea straight from a csm member perhaps??