These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rat aggression swaps in pvp situations.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#301 - 2015-07-02 13:39:22 UTC
Can confirm stupidity tank unbreakable.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#302 - 2015-07-02 13:53:44 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
That probably has come up already in this thread, but there it is anyway.

I'll try to play devil's advocate here and say that in the end rats, for the most part, are resource to be harvested with adequate tools. Although instead of binary evaluation of said tool by game mechanics (for example: is this mining laser? yes, you can gather your ore), adequacy is tested in combat (can you deal this DPS and not be toasted in the process? here's yor ISK and loot opportunity).

So, if we treat it like that (and I guess not many people would object if we are talking about practical matters), is it really a good idea that we currently have almost-rocks defending almost-miners in case someone jumps the latter?

Of course, abstract principle is not the only concern, there may be others, like "do we want ratting/ganking easier/harder in practice?", but there's that.



The argument falls through when you discuss the almost rock *defending* your almost miner. The almost rock isn't defending anything, it's acting according to it's nature in a completely neutral manner. To keep your analogy going, the Almost Rock is dangerous to be around, more so when you use Ewar around it. The nature of the danger is well known to all and sundry, and the OP and his pet lobotomy victim want the danger changed so it only affects your almost miner. Not an adjustment to more evenly balance the danger, not a mechanic where they can earn that immunity... they just want the game to default that they don't' have to deal with that danger at all while their enemy does.

Lacking any sort of clear justification for such a change, the vast majority of folks simply dismiss the idea as ludicrous. The overall poor reasoning skills displayed by the ideas most ardent defenders has squashed any realistic discussion of how to make this harebrained idea less stupid. Your own analysis is the most clear sighted, and it's reliance on insisting the rats defend the ratter makes it an ineffective argument at best.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#303 - 2015-07-02 14:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Mark Hadden wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.

no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what.
Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check.

Loving the way you immediately dismiss someone because the character they post with on these forums essentially has no kill board. Wondering if the EvE reality of many accounts, many characters has even entered your mind. Perhaps the character Mike Voidstar has no kill board, does that mean the person who owns that account/character has no PvP experiences?
Your assuming that the person behind the character Mike Voidstar has no PvP experience and to that I have to say.
When you assume you make an "ass" out of "umption" and he has enough problems with a name like that. No this is not original I read it in a thread a long time ago but it seems appropriate here. All credit to the original poster of this tid bit I just wish I could remember the name to give proper credit.


Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.

1. In times past rats never changed aggro.
2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types.
From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way.

Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.

Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think. And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it. And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.

In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here.
"Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#304 - 2015-07-02 14:20:02 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.

no, because you're a virgin trying to discuss you know what.
Your agent prolly be ready for next L4, I'd check.

Loving the way you immediately dismiss someone because the character they post with on these forums essentially has no kill board. Wondering if the EvE reality of many accounts, many characters has even entered your mind. Perhaps the character Mike Voidstar has no kill board, does that mean the person who owns that account/character has no PvP experiences?
Your assuming that the person behind the character Mike Voidstar has no PvP experience and to that I have to say.
When you assume you make an "ass" out of "umption" and he has enough problems with a name like that. No this is not original I read it in a thread a long time ago but it seems appropriate here. All credit to the original poster of this tid bit I just wish I could remember the name to give proper credit.


Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.

1. In times past rats never changed aggro.
2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types.
From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way.

Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.

Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think. And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it. And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.

In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here.
"Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act.


To be fair, I did admit that this is my main, and I don't have alts. The reason I don't have a killboard history is because I don't participate in any killboards, and rarely come into conflict with those that do.

He also does have the right to suggest changes in F&I like anyone else. It's just sad that neither Robert nor Wolf can justify the change with anything other than "I want it" and can only defend the idea with "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you!!".
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#305 - 2015-07-02 14:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Donnachadh wrote:
Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.

1. In times past rats never changed aggro.
2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types.
From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way.

you attest CCP the knowledge and foresight about gamechanges they ever commited and thus being always right? Are you for real? Honestly. They changed it for PvE's sake and broke PvP rather unintentionally. Because I cant and dont believe the consequence of NPC protecting the farmer were intentional, since CCP had no reason or whatsoever to make already safe thing even safer of that magnitude.

Donnachadh wrote:
Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.

Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think.

I dont really care - we can complain nonetheless, cant we? Ratters whined and stil whine about cloakers occupying their farming corners.

Donnachadh wrote:
And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it.

oh really? then you probably can tell me a reason why they would add a huge chunk of safety for farmers where it wasnt needed at all - and reduce amount of pvp (a really simple conclusion, was explained on first pages) in same time? Why would that be good? I cant think of a reason, really not.

Donnachadh wrote:
And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.

In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here.
"Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act.

I adapted by not doing it anymore.
And who knows how long I will pay for this game at the pace CCP is removing content, but thats not a subject of this topic.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#306 - 2015-07-02 14:58:21 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:

you attest CCP the knowledge and foresight about gamechanges they ever commited and thus being always right? Are you for real? Honestly. They changed it for PvE's sake and broke PvP rather unintentionally. Because I cant and dont believe the consequence of NPC protecting the farmer were intentional, since CCP had no reason or whatsoever to make already safe thing even safer of that magnitude.



If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know... It's not like some PvE dude was going to find some game breaking flaws making PvE encounter as long has he help point on his alt and thus needed the rats to target those point users...

They could of made it random with a diceroll every few seconds but they decided that instead, E-war had the potential to generate a hard switch. Is this really in the realm of unintended consequence?
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#307 - 2015-07-02 15:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know...

but, why would they want that??
I mean ratting was safe enough already, why would they make it even safer and implement a NPC counter to pvp in complexes?

I mean you should know what happens if you solo tackle something inside guristas anomaly? The chance of getting jammed and probably missing your target are pretty damn high. Scouts in ceptors get jammed all the time and miss killmails, pushing Guristas in the top rank of best rats in the game, followed by serpentis who will only damp you to **** and all the others who'd just tracking disrupt, target paint and neut your ship (not that severe as disruptor doesnt need much cap) -drones not doing any ewar afaik, worst from all.
But the question stands, why would CCP want rats to quasi protect the farmer that way?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#308 - 2015-07-02 15:52:17 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know...

but, why would they want that??
I mean ratting was safe enough already, why would they make it even safer and implement a NPC counter to pvp in complexes?

I mean you should know what happens if you solo tackle something inside guristas anomaly? The chance of getting jammed and probably missing your target are pretty damn high. Scouts in ceptors get jammed all the time and miss killmails, pushing Guristas in the top rank of best rats in the game, followed by serpentis who will only damp you to **** and all the others who'd just tracking disrupt, target paint and neut your ship (not that severe as disruptor doesnt need much cap) -drones not doing any ewar afaik, worst from all.
But the question stands, why would CCP want rats to quasi protect the farmer that way?


I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.

Only CCP can ever answer why they though it made sense for rats to switch so consistently on those e-war application. For all I know, it was a plot to force you to run in groups but what the hell do I know? Just as much as you on this to be honest.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#309 - 2015-07-02 16:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.


its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences.

Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#310 - 2015-07-02 16:06:59 UTC
I was confused as to how this could keep going, but then I remembered something from the past that kind of explains all of this. I doubt any of the voices you will hear are this lad, but it is from the pond he swims in.

For your listening pleasure please do the following:

1. Open Google
2. Type in: eve online armor hacs
3. Push play
4. Enjoy

I think this will tie things up neatly for a lot of folks. It must be an alliance thing!?!??
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#311 - 2015-07-02 16:11:03 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.


its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences.

Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog.


How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#312 - 2015-07-02 16:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Frostys Virpio wrote:

How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?


well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.

Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#313 - 2015-07-02 16:28:12 UTC
For one thing, those PvE activities aren't that safe. They may not die in the easy and cheap way you would prefer, but they die all the time, even to solo hunters.

Secondly, yet again, Those activities are not balanced by the presence of gankbears in cheap ships. Creating a need for bigger ships that require more minerals to produce is a vastly more productive balance on the economy, and provides a less frustrating situation for the PvE pilot as well. ISK only gets destroyed when you purchase something from an NPC--- not a terribly common occurrence in the game. Mineral Value dies every time something explodes, and that helps drive the economy.

As for the heat from tackling someone in an anomaly filled with rats... it's not a death sentence with the proper preparation. Your target is doing it, and so can you. I will say it again---the real problem is that your target has no motivation to fight you for anything there. If he did, you would find your fight, but you would not like that either as he would likely be prepared to fight rather than flee.
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2015-07-02 16:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
we've been all over it 15 times in this thread and I learned that I dont want to argue pvp topics with a pve high sec bear because its like, well, talk about fking with a virgin... he knows the theory, yet noone would ever care about his opinion.

You simply CAN'T judge or evaluate any of pvp related aspects of this topic, nor do you accept the opinion of people who can, so why are you here? If you hunted ratters a bit, if you knew how much effort and skill it requires to get those kills you'd guaranteed feel differently about getting jammed and hammered by ******* NPC at that point after hours of hunt and see the ratter warping off and hear him laughing from under his POS force field.

So, go back to Motsu and talk to other mission runners about stuff you have an idea of. I'm not going to reiterate on anything once again. You want the add on PvE safety, you like rats quasi protecting you, I want the opposite, this is all what it boils down to.



See, here is where you are wrong. Again. In an almost mind boggling new way.

First, I would not try to fly in an area full of dozens of rats without a proper tank or without preparations for the ewar they use. That's just dumb. Even without using ewar you can expect some rat lovin, so going in with the intention of using modules that really, really get their attention is just brain dead rock stupid- which I am not.

Perhaps the problem is your lack of interest or respect for PvE. You don't understand the playstyle, costs, risks or other considerations, and so rather than learn you just want to be able to ignore it. That would be like me asking for my ship to be immune to player weapons fire because I don't want to deal with PvP.

I am not advocating for more ratter safety. I am advocating for a level playing field. What you want is stupid, selfish and unbalanced- especially to get such a huge advantage as a default for no effort.

You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance. You want to pretend like there is some mystical secret to your playstyle that makes it somehow morally superior or something. All you succeed in doing is prove yourself incapable of rational dialogue, especially with your juvenile references to sex and virgins. Oooh, yeah! That just made you cooler! Roll

Quite the opposite, I move expensive ships through all areas of space on a regular basis. I know the effort required to travel safely and get where you are going even with very slow ships.

It's more like discussing baseball with someone who is not a fan, but lives with lots of superfans. It's impossible to play EvE without picking up PvP skills of some kind. You might take my lack of substancial lossess as more of a clue than a reason to discount any opinion I might voice. And really, I don't know that I have ever been to Motsu, try banging on another hub for a while.


See this is why you cant be taken seriously. That stuff you wrote is just bullshit but you arent good enough at this game to understand why it is and hence argueing about it with you is pointless and its going in circels forver and it that makes me sad. (or you are a very good troll)

I mean just look at that first paragraph and tell me that any semicompetent eve pilot doesnt immeditaly get why that is utter nonsense. Its a experience thing.


And no one in this game respects pve, its a joke that can be done by brainless people. Sure optimal lvl 4 misison triggers and so on takes experience (although 0 piloting skill) but seeing as if you do lvl4s you are terrible at the game anyways (due to their appalling isk/h). I mean the ages of 3bil/h times are over but if you cant break 500mil/h or so you seriously should reconsider your playstyle. Dont look at pvpers and think you are actually better at pve then they are, their losses have to be payed by something and for most people it sure as hell isnt selling plex.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#315 - 2015-07-02 16:40:15 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?


well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.

Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?



I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#316 - 2015-07-02 16:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
For one thing, those PvE activities aren't that safe. They may not die in the easy and cheap way you would prefer, but they die all the time, even to solo hunters.

PvE is safe, was safe enough if you arent idiot - otherwise there werent thousands of ratters across 0.0 even pre-Retribution.
But how would you know it as high sec mission runner squatter. Right. You couldnt...

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Secondly, yet again, Those activities are not balanced by the presence of gankbears in cheap ships.

yet again, I dont know how you'd relate my statement about gankbear balance, my statement
is completely unrelated and stands for itself.
Changed PvP mechanics which make it harder to gank ratters consequently remove pvp, this is a logical
conclusion you cant deny. Not everyone (minority in this case) will want to adapt for tanking rats dps+ew on
top of PvEer or even bother trying solo -> removed pvp.
This is actually a totally obvious conclusion for any half brained human with a little sense of logic.
Thats why I ask: why was this huge chunk of additional safety justified?

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Creating a need for bigger ships that require more minerals to produce is a vastly more productive balance on the economy, and provides a less frustrating situation for the PvE pilot as well.

not if people stop or significantly reduce solo roaming, which happened. Apart of that, an exploded ratting raven needed minerals to replace too, silly argument. Less frustrating? Not as frustrating as its for hunters now who lose tackle on hard earned kills by broken NPC.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
ISK only gets destroyed when you purchase something from an NPC--- not a terribly common occurrence in the game. Mineral Value dies every time something explodes, and that helps drive the economy.

another argument why these mechanics are bad. less ratters explode.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
As for the heat from tackling someone in an anomaly filled with rats... it's not a death sentence with the proper preparation. Your target is doing it, and so can you. I will say it again---the real problem is that your target has no motivation to fight you for anything there. If he did, you would find your fight, but you would not like that either as he would likely be prepared to fight rather than flee.

I will say it again, go back to your missions and leave this topic you arent qualified for, not a bit.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#317 - 2015-07-02 16:48:19 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:


Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?


What exactly could of been wanted by CCP beside rats swapping aggro on E-war usage when they coded hard switch of aggro on e-war usage?

This is not unintended. As long as people like you keep saying it might be unintended, I will put a value of "bullshit" on your argument because you flat out don't make sense.

It's not about it being un-tested and containing something bad, it's a hard switch which mean they had to insert different value for those modules since attacking a target with guns for example does not trigger such drastic change.

It was wanted by CCP when it was done. Now all you can do is hope they ever say WHY it was wanted or keep being delusional in your though of how this happened by accident.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#318 - 2015-07-02 16:51:38 UTC
Your entire hunting style depends on ratters needing to flee rather than fight. If they had a reason to stay they would be ready to fight and everyone would have more fun, unless you were a whining child that only has fun when the other guy explodes.

Your entire schtick about ratters being to safe relies upon the false notion that they require your cheap ships killing them on a regular basis to balance them. They don't.

People stopped roaming the way you want, they didn't stop roaming all together. Most people adapted and moved on with their lives. Those PvE pilots didn't stop dying, they just die in different ways. Perhaps they die a little less often, but that's healthy for the game if its made up by hunters dying a little more often, which apparently they do judging from the sheer volume of your tears and bile.

Less ratters explode, more hunters explode, balance and health of the game is maintained. PvP experience of PvE pilots is improved by the perception of less cheap deaths. Seems all positive from here.

I will leave the topic when it sinks to the bottom of the forums where it belongs.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#319 - 2015-07-02 16:54:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

What exactly could of been wanted by CCP beside rats swapping aggro on E-war usage when they coded hard switch of aggro on e-war usage?

web on rats, target painter, ECM on rats maybe? Who knows.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

This is not unintended. As long as people like you keep saying it might be unintended, I will put a value of "bullshit" on your argument because you flat out don't make sense.

you still failed to provide any argument why making PvE safer would make sense from CCPs perspective,
apart of "because they put it there", which is obviously a fallacy as I explained above.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

It's not about it being un-tested and containing something bad, it's a hard switch which mean they had to insert different value for those modules since attacking a target with guns for example does not trigger such drastic change.

they also coded whole teams feature and SHIFT-DEL'd it one release later. so what?

Frostys Virpio wrote:

It was wanted by CCP when it was done.

lol. Oh well. actually I'd like to leave this stunning quote uncommented
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2015-07-02 17:00:59 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?


well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.

Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?



I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1.


Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh.