These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rebuttal: Nerf Without Cause: Jump Drives

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#341 - 2013-01-19 21:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Given that the larger group has the FCs to spare, sure, your argument can make sense. I'm not refuting the paper-rock-scissors aspect of Eve, nor am I saying 1 tactic is more absolute than the other. But a larger group will depend on a more corpse cannon approach than a smaller for the exact reasons you implied so that would definitely work in the larger groups favor for sure!

But the counter to that would be what? Dock up? Sure, if the fight is not a good match. But for a smaller group I'd think mobility being a better benefit would allow a better chance of picking off stragglers as the pure logistics of moving a large fleet would allow more opportunity, especially given the rnage of logi ships and all the bumping and clamoring for range. and not to metnion jumps and missed jumps, miss warps etc.

Increase the # of jumps, and you increase the # of opportunity for other people to get involved and pick other people off, because if power projection would affect sov space and its boundaries, more sov owners might have more chances to do more destructive things.

This isn't dependent on 1v1 sov bashing that seems your arguments lead to. This is in a more grander scheme of things.

This is in hopes of trying to alliance the # of powerblocs that exist and how everything seems to come to 1/2/3 coalitions at any given time being a part of "good fights" or even a good read.

If you have a higher # of smaller groups holding sov (less blue being the point) you have more diplomacy needed, more intrigue and not necessarily "drama", but a higher count of espionage and "epic events" coming forward. In what I would think, or even dream, of being a greater incentive for more people to explore and want to try null life.

Since game mechanics allow for jumps to happen as they are, and you think power projection shouldn't be adjusted in the way we have been discussing, I am all for you applying some ideas on how larger coalitions should be pared down to size to accomodate a desire to come into null. We all know industry is not the route. It's not a matter of ccp creating a way to make people come to null by radically changing something, it's a need of shoring up those larger forces since I see it as being something much larger than should be. Like I said pages ago, I think a finetuning needs to be done, not something that's nerfed down into the ground just because I don't like it, but I would rather see more growth period.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#342 - 2013-01-19 21:19:40 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nat, am I "Mark"? My corp itself is based in both highsec and null (npc right now). The alliance itself is based in null and is more than 29 corporations (Wait, I think it's down to 23 ish or so since -DD- being formed).

That is, if you are speaking to me. If someone else, sorry for butting in. Other corps we frequently go on roams are mostly based in lowsec right now in a more casual scenario for harassing FW players and just generally messing with gate camps (seasonal).

We frequently fight vs tribal and solar quite often.

I apologize.

Yeah, my eyes are starting to be effected by my age. Spelled your name wrong.


But, about how many people are in the alliance. A quess is fine.



I normally see around 100-150 alliance members online, depending on CTA's etc.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2013-01-19 21:24:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You quoted the answer to your question. Multiple times.

The larger group splitting up into smaller forces makes it easier for smaller forces to "survive", especially if you follow the rule of "strength in numbers". Whereas it might be difficult to kill 1 carrier out of 20, if you have a smaller group split off, it's easier to kill smaller numbers. Just because the larger force has splinter groups, doesn't mean the smaller group is alone. You are directly comparing the 2 again sir.


They're not splitting up into multiple groups going different places. They're splitting up on paper only.

The large groups "splinter groups" are the same size as the small group's main force. Saying that the small group is teaming up with others is simply saying "The small group wins because it becomes a big group, therefore small groups are better."

The mittani article demonstrated exactly how a JF nerf hurts small groups more.

It sounds like you've never heard of "economies of scale."




That mittani gave one example of a smaller group holding sov in a far unreachable corner. Are you trying to imply that holds true for all of null? If so maybe we need to revist the beginning of this thread...

Because you mentioned also that we are talking about taking sov... whereas that is only one element, you are focusing on it. My point is that what we are talking about affects all forms and would in turn change the playing board, as it were. You're saying it would not because that that smaller group would not be able to take sov. I'm saying it would work against holding that sov in the first place, maybe even making it up for grabs (planned use of timers, affecting ability to marshal up forces through diplomacy of toher groups by changing the "ease" in which to move forces to reinforce timers etc).

Limiting the ability, or even making it harder, would create more growth in null, atleast, that's what I believe, if the current model is anything to go by.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#344 - 2013-01-19 21:27:57 UTC
Larger than it should be? What?

Corp size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for several THOUSAND members.

Alliance size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for a few dozen corporations with THOUSANDS of members each to tag each other as allies.



Pardon me, how can it be to large, when CCP hard coded the **** in to allow us to get to large.


The coalition situation is nothing more than empries in null agreeing to peace. CCP can not, and will not, force players in null to fight each other. That's NOT THE POINT OF NULL. They do that in low sec, where you can still have 10's of thousand strong member alliances fighting with other alliances alied to one of the four factions.

You know, the largest, most unorganized blob in EVE, high sec.


You're implying that something is being done that isn't intended, and refusing to accept that what is happening is entirely intended.

Murk,
CCP, for a decade, has done everything in there power to encourage us to develop huge empries in null sec. They didn't give us the corp, alliance, and jump drive codes so that null would be run by nothing but small groups.

How can you say it's to large when they've intentionally done things to allow us to get to this point, let alone attempt to imply that it's not; which is basicaly what you're saying.



Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#345 - 2013-01-19 21:32:53 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Larger than it should be? What?

Corp size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for several THOUSAND members.

Alliance size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for a few dozen corporations with THOUSANDS of members each to tag each other as allies.



Pardon me, how can it be to large, when CCP hard coded the **** in to allow us to get to large.


The coalition situation is nothing more than empries in null agreeing to peace. CCP can not, and will not, force players in null to fight each other. That's NOT THE POINT OF NULL. They do that in low sec, where you can still have 10's of thousand strong member alliances fighting with other alliances alied to one of the four factions.

You know, the largest, most unorganized blob in EVE, high sec.


You're implying that something is being done that isn't intended, and refusing to accept that what is happening is entirely intended.

Murk,
CCP, for a decade, has done everything in there power to encourage us to develop huge empries in null sec. They didn't give us the corp, alliance, and jump drive codes so that null would be run by nothing but small groups.

How can you say it's to large when they've intentionally done things to allow us to get to this point, let alone attempt to imply that it's not; which is basicaly what you're saying.





That's not what I'm meaning at all. The too large I'm speaking of is based off of population #s in comparison to probably what I would only imagine would be CCP's estimated server population at the inception of the ideas they created. I'm not speaking of individual corp size, I understand the size allows for it, I just don't think the community does.

While I think it's actually a GOOD thing to have the ability of having 10,000 members in a single blue force, I do not think that it should be 10,000 out of 14,000. (fake numbers)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#346 - 2013-01-19 21:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
I also do not think the intention was to have so many moon systems, or even systems period, be owned by so few groups while still maintaining that many npc null systems.

I would also imagine, that moon mining was an encouragement to create strife and war and strained diplomacy otherwise every system would have the same resource equally as a benefit of owning null in itself. But I'm pretty sure that with all the choke points, travel routes, placement of systems is designed to intentionally create advantage, I just think it more closely resembles an empty field growing unchecked than a finely cultivated garden. If that makes sense.

Otherwise this would be hellokittyonline would it not?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#347 - 2013-01-19 21:42:44 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



I normally see around 100-150 alliance members online, depending on CTA's etc.

Right now

Corp 124
Alliance 580


Goonwaffe is, what, around 20-25% of the total alliance?
That would mean that GSF is composed of a LOT of rather small corporations.

That means there are a LOT of smaller corporations in control of sov in null.

You guys just don't have an anchor.


Null is working EXACTLY as intended when it comes to EMPIRE building.

If anything, the groups aren't large enough.
As is the sizes allow for a broader dynamic in null sec. It allows for interpolitical conflict. Diplomacy means something.

Some of you want CCP to try and "shrink" things to the point that small gangs can hold sov. through force. You guys are just asking to have low sec diplomacy in null.


You want to be able to hold sov at that size through force, and that's rediculous.

Most notably rediculous because just GOONWAFFE alone could take your entire alliances sov!
Just Goonwaffe, not the GSF, not a single alli, just Goonwaffe. Breaking the alliances isn't helping you!

Our corporation is larger than your alliance man!
WTF.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#348 - 2013-01-19 21:54:09 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You want to be able to hold sov at that size through force, and that's rediculous.

Most notably rediculous because just GOONWAFFE alone could take your entire alliances sov!
Just Goonwaffe, not the GSF, not a single alli, just Goonwaffe. Breaking the alliances isn't helping you!

Our corporation is larger than your alliance man!
WTF.

Can we get Boat as well? I mean, might need some encouragement to shoot all those structures.

Or I guess we could use the GW titan pilots...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#349 - 2013-01-19 21:54:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Larger than it should be? What?

Corp size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for several THOUSAND members.

Alliance size, hard coded by CCP, and allows for a few dozen corporations with THOUSANDS of members each to tag each other as allies.



Pardon me, how can it be to large, when CCP hard coded the **** in to allow us to get to large.


The coalition situation is nothing more than empries in null agreeing to peace. CCP can not, and will not, force players in null to fight each other. That's NOT THE POINT OF NULL. They do that in low sec, where you can still have 10's of thousand strong member alliances fighting with other alliances alied to one of the four factions.

You know, the largest, most unorganized blob in EVE, high sec.


You're implying that something is being done that isn't intended, and refusing to accept that what is happening is entirely intended.

Murk,
CCP, for a decade, has done everything in there power to encourage us to develop huge empries in null sec. They didn't give us the corp, alliance, and jump drive codes so that null would be run by nothing but small groups.

How can you say it's to large when they've intentionally done things to allow us to get to this point, let alone attempt to imply that it's not; which is basicaly what you're saying.





That's not what I'm meaning at all. The too large I'm speaking of is based off of population #s in comparison to probably what I would only imagine would be CCP's estimated server population at the inception of the ideas they created. I'm not speaking of individual corp size, I understand the size allows for it, I just don't think the community does.

While I think it's actually a GOOD thing to have the ability of having 10,000 members in a single blue force, I do not think that it should be 10,000 out of 14,000. (fake numbers)

That makes no sense what-so-ever.

It's to large because their aren't enough people in null?

Are you saying that the GSF is to large, given the number of people overal in null?
Because that's got **** to do with us and everything to do with both the overal game population and a lock of worthwhile content and reason in null.

You don't need sov for NPC null. Even if your little group had sov, you would be facing all the same issue that every other person with sov faces. How do you keep your guys logging in, playing, and having fun IN YOUR SPACE when there's nothing to actually do in that space.

Believe it or not, not everyone in null does PvP 100% of the time. Even null players do PvE things, it's how most people make isk. Where do they go to make isk? high sec. Most people simply will not deal with null if they have to go back to high sec to make isk.


A funny thing happens when you make space safer, people have a tendency to play in it. Null groups have provided a place to play for thier members, but CCP forgot to give us enough content. Only so many people can mine any given system, only so many people can rat, only so many people can do complexers, and there are no agents in our sov.

Not even your alliance would have enough content, and that's the worste part about it.
You're space would look much worse though. GSF space has activety, and you can find gangs to shoot in deklein, for no other reason than we have enough people to generate enough traffick, to attract people to come here because they know there's activity and they can find a goon to shoot.

You're alliance size wouldn't support that. It would be entirely empty.
Except fot he 1000 goonwaffe members who are there taking it from you.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#350 - 2013-01-19 21:59:55 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You're space would look much worse though. GSF space has activety, and you can find gangs to shoot in deklein, for no other reason than we have enough people to generate enough traffick, to attract people to come here because they know there's activity and they can find a goon to shoot.

You're alliance size wouldn't support that. It would be entirely empty.
Except fot he 1000 goonwaffe members who are there taking it from you.

Probably wouldn't need 1000. I think a few titans and a fleet or two of subcaps would be enough to outblob them and take down the structures without too much trouble.

Unless some lowsec FW people drop in with dreadnaughts, you know :v:

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#351 - 2013-01-19 22:00:33 UTC
Bleh my post contained html, I'm not rewriting it. I'll have to post later. Have a good weekend.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#352 - 2013-01-19 22:05:39 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You're space would look much worse though. GSF space has activety, and you can find gangs to shoot in deklein, for no other reason than we have enough people to generate enough traffick, to attract people to come here because they know there's activity and they can find a goon to shoot.

You're alliance size wouldn't support that. It would be entirely empty.
Except fot he 1000 goonwaffe members who are there taking it from you.

Probably wouldn't need 1000. I think a few titans and a fleet or two of subcaps would be enough to outblob them and take down the structures without too much trouble.

Unless some lowsec FW people drop in with dreadnaughts, you know :v:

I wouldn't put it past a goon to say "we're doing this with 1000 rifters" just to make a ******* point.

"We were just roaming in our rifters and accidentally on purpose took your ****, sorry guy."

"But now that we got, we have to defend it with 10 supers."
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#353 - 2013-01-19 22:11:52 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You're space would look much worse though. GSF space has activety, and you can find gangs to shoot in deklein, for no other reason than we have enough people to generate enough traffick, to attract people to come here because they know there's activity and they can find a goon to shoot.

You're alliance size wouldn't support that. It would be entirely empty.
Except fot he 1000 goonwaffe members who are there taking it from you.

Probably wouldn't need 1000. I think a few titans and a fleet or two of subcaps would be enough to outblob them and take down the structures without too much trouble.

Unless some lowsec FW people drop in with dreadnaughts, you know :v:

I wouldn't put it past a goon to say "we're doing this with 1000 rifters" just to make a ******* point.

"We were just roaming in our rifters and accidentally on purpose took your ****, sorry guy."

"But now that we got, we have to defend it with 10 supers."

Boat did insist on alphaing a freighter with thrashers during Burn Jita. It was an empty one too, what a waste.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#354 - 2013-01-19 22:40:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Given that the larger group has the FCs to spare, sure, your argument can make sense. I'm not refuting the paper-rock-scissors aspect of Eve, nor am I saying 1 tactic is more absolute than the other. But a larger group will depend on a more corpse cannon approach than a smaller for the exact reasons you implied so that would definitely work in the larger groups favor for sure!


The development of Fleet Doctrines and their dominance over overwhelmingly larger numbers of "Kitchen Sink" proves that you're wrong.

There is absolutely no reason for large groups to be intentionally disorganized and use "corpse cannon" tactics when they could use much more effective tactics. They can use the exact same tactics that smaller groups can but on a much larger scale (when bombs weren't damaging bombs, GSF killed one of their own carriers with one bombing run to prove a point.)


Quote:
But the counter to that would be what? Dock up? Sure, if the fight is not a good match. But for a smaller group I'd think mobility being a better benefit would allow a better chance of picking off stragglers as the pure logistics of moving a large fleet would allow more opportunity, especially given the rnage of logi ships and all the bumping and clamoring for range. and not to metnion jumps and missed jumps, miss warps etc.


Picking off stragglers does not let you gain Sov. No matter how many you pick off.

Quote:
Increase the # of jumps, and you increase the # of opportunity for other people to get involved and pick other people off, because if power projection would affect sov space and its boundaries, more sov owners might have more chances to do more destructive things.

This isn't dependent on 1v1 sov bashing that seems your arguments lead to. This is in a more grander scheme of things.

This is in hopes of trying to alliance the # of powerblocs that exist and how everything seems to come to 1/2/3 coalitions at any given time being a part of "good fights" or even a good read.

If you have a higher # of smaller groups holding sov (less blue being the point) you have more diplomacy needed, more intrigue and not necessarily "drama", but a higher count of espionage and "epic events" coming forward. In what I would think, or even dream, of being a greater incentive for more people to explore and want to try null life.


You have still yet to provide any justification for your claim that nerfing jump drives/cynos would reduce large groups ability to hold massive amounts of Sov.

Quote:
Since game mechanics allow for jumps to happen as they are, and you think power projection shouldn't be adjusted in the way we have been discussing, I am all for you applying some ideas on how larger coalitions should be pared down to size to accomodate a desire to come into null. We all know industry is not the route. It's not a matter of ccp creating a way to make people come to null by radically changing something, it's a need of shoring up those larger forces since I see it as being something much larger than should be. Like I said pages ago, I think a finetuning needs to be done, not something that's nerfed down into the ground just because I don't like it, but I would rather see more growth period.


Once again, I have no problem with large, militarily powerful groups kicking the **** out of smaller groups in Nullsec. Because, once again, that's the whole goddamn point of nullsec. Attempting to prevent a large group from kicking the **** out of a small group in a stand up fight* is attempting to "fix" the proposition that 1+1 > 1, which isn't actually a problem, let alone one that needs fixing.

*Sov fights have to be a stand up fight because the alternative is to remove timers, which would allow small groups to be literally kicked out of whatever space they can scrape together overnight.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#355 - 2013-01-19 23:06:48 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
*Sov fights have to be a stand up fight because the alternative is to remove timers, which would allow small groups to be literally kicked out of whatever space they can scrape together overnight.

Boat would love that.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#356 - 2013-01-21 20:13:42 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Given that the larger group has the FCs to spare, sure, your argument can make sense. I'm not refuting the paper-rock-scissors aspect of Eve, nor am I saying 1 tactic is more absolute than the other. But a larger group will depend on a more corpse cannon approach than a smaller for the exact reasons you implied so that would definitely work in the larger groups favor for sure!


The development of Fleet Doctrines and their dominance over overwhelmingly larger numbers of "Kitchen Sink" proves that you're wrong.

There is absolutely no reason for large groups to be intentionally disorganized and use "corpse cannon" tactics when they could use much more effective tactics. They can use the exact same tactics that smaller groups can but on a much larger scale (when bombs weren't damaging bombs, GSF killed one of their own carriers with one bombing run to prove a point.)


Quote:
But the counter to that would be what? Dock up? Sure, if the fight is not a good match. But for a smaller group I'd think mobility being a better benefit would allow a better chance of picking off stragglers as the pure logistics of moving a large fleet would allow more opportunity, especially given the rnage of logi ships and all the bumping and clamoring for range. and not to metnion jumps and missed jumps, miss warps etc.


Picking off stragglers does not let you gain Sov. No matter how many you pick off.

Quote:
Increase the # of jumps, and you increase the # of opportunity for other people to get involved and pick other people off, because if power projection would affect sov space and its boundaries, more sov owners might have more chances to do more destructive things.

This isn't dependent on 1v1 sov bashing that seems your arguments lead to. This is in a more grander scheme of things.

This is in hopes of trying to alliance the # of powerblocs that exist and how everything seems to come to 1/2/3 coalitions at any given time being a part of "good fights" or even a good read.

If you have a higher # of smaller groups holding sov (less blue being the point) you have more diplomacy needed, more intrigue and not necessarily "drama", but a higher count of espionage and "epic events" coming forward. In what I would think, or even dream, of being a greater incentive for more people to explore and want to try null life.


You have still yet to provide any justification for your claim that nerfing jump drives/cynos would reduce large groups ability to hold massive amounts of Sov.

Quote:
Since game mechanics allow for jumps to happen as they are, and you think power projection shouldn't be adjusted in the way we have been discussing, I am all for you applying some ideas on how larger coalitions should be pared down to size to accomodate a desire to come into null. We all know industry is not the route. It's not a matter of ccp creating a way to make people come to null by radically changing something, it's a need of shoring up those larger forces since I see it as being something much larger than should be. Like I said pages ago, I think a finetuning needs to be done, not something that's nerfed down into the ground just because I don't like it, but I would rather see more growth period.


Once again, I have no problem with large, militarily powerful groups kicking the **** out of smaller groups in Nullsec. Because, once again, that's the whole goddamn point of nullsec. Attempting to prevent a large group from kicking the **** out of a small group in a stand up fight* is attempting to "fix" the proposition that 1+1 > 1, which isn't actually a problem, let alone one that needs fixing.

*Sov fights have to be a stand up fight because the alternative is to remove timers, which would allow small groups to be literally kicked out of whatever space they can scrape together overnight.



I think you need to tell the OP that, not me. You are focusing on only sov and the taking of. Please start the thread over instead of derailing it for your own campaign.

Thank you.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#357 - 2013-01-21 20:43:11 UTC
Yeah, because taking sov isn't relevant at all to the discussion.Roll

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#358 - 2013-01-21 20:51:13 UTC
If you take a step back and read, you too will realize it isn't.

Here's a hint, start with the thread title.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2013-01-21 21:21:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
If you take a step back and read, you too will realize it isn't.

Here's a hint, start with the thread title.

Which brings us to point two, none of these mechanics have anything to do with each other at all. Roll

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#360 - 2013-01-21 21:34:42 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
If you take a step back and read, you too will realize it isn't.

Here's a hint, start with the thread title.

Which brings us to point two, none of these mechanics have anything to do with each other at all. Roll



I wouldn't go as far as to say Mynnna was off base... just, biased.

But it's your opinion, have it as much as you'd like I guess.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.