DUST Search - So you know..OMS sucks compared to normal. Leave battle

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them.

Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues.

Baby steps

I honestly hate the idea of having 2 Ambush modes. Not because it will divide the playerbase, but because I think it says something sad about the game modes we have. Domination is basically a tweaked version of Skirmish, and OMS is pretty much a tweaked version of Ambush. I'm sick of only getting modes that are just the exact same thing. For 2 years I have been asking for a mode with an attack/defend mode similar to the original Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta.

In the original Skirmish, 1 team started out with an MCC slowly approaching the outpost for docking, the other started out with control of all objectives. The attackers had to destroy both defense relays (a type of objective controlling all installations), then that unlocked the next stage; a new portion of the map was "unlocked", and the attackers objective then became to disable the null cannons that threatened to destroy the MCC before the docking.

I don't expect this kind of complexity to be possible, but how about a new version of Skirmish where the maps and objectives are just the same, but one team (defenders) starts out with the null cannons under their control. The other team start with no objective, but once they take control of an objective, the defenders cannot take it back. Attackers win once they take control of all objectives.

I know this really simple dumbed down version of a multi-stage attack/defend mode will likely never happen, but if you somehow can make it happen, please do. Game modes were never given more than an ounce of attention in Dust. The current boring game mode situation to me is the absolute WORST aspect of this game, and it genuinely makes me angry because we had this really interesting and engaging mode (Skirmish 1.0) and it just got scrapped. I'm tired of doing the same things over and over.

As sad as it would be to have 2 Ambushes and 0 actually good modes... yeah I guess you should separate them for the sake of player-choice.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Judge Rhadamanthus Amarr Templar One 2279	Posted - 2014.06.20 14:33:00 - [91] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Your enjoyment at the time of play will be enhanced if you stop trying to game the system, and just play it. Game the system? What are you going on about? Gaming the system is an exploitation of the rules to gain an advantage, How about you explain how you think I am exploiting the queue system and what advantage I gain over others using the queue system. Also how is playing a game mode I do not currently want to play enhancing my enjoyment? That statement makes no sense at all. Judge For CPM 1 youtube Twitter @Judge_EVELegion
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11176	Posted - 2014.06.20 14:48:00 - [92] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps I honestly hate the idea of having 2 Ambush modes. Not because it will divide the playerbase, but because I think it says something sad about the game modes we have. Domination is basically a tweaked version of Skirmish, and OMS is pretty much a tweaked version of Ambush. I'm sick of only getting modes that are just the exact same thing. For 2 years I have been asking for a mode with an attack/defend mode similar to the original Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta. In the original Skirmish, 1 team started out with an MCC slowly approaching the outpost for docking, the other started out with control of all objectives. The attackers had to destroy both defense relays (a type of objective controlling all installations), then that unlocked the next stage; a new portion of the map was "unlocked", and the attackers objective then became to disable the null cannons that threatened to destroy the MCC before the docking. I don't expect this kind of complexity to be possible, but how about a new version of Skirmish where the maps and objectives are just the same, but one team (defenders) starts out with the null cannons under their control. The other team start with no objective, but once they take control of an objective, the defenders cannot take it back. Attackers win once they take control of all objectives. I know this really simple dumbed down version of a multi-stage attack/defend mode will likely never happen, but if you somehow can make it happen, please do. Game modes were never given more than an ounce of attention in Dust. The current boring game mode situation to me is the absolute WORST aspect of this game, and it genuinely makes me angry because we had this really interesting and engaging mode (Skirmish 1.0) and it just got scrapped. I'm tired of doing the same things over and over. As sad as it would be to have 2 Ambushes and 0 actually good modes... yeah I guess you should separate them for the sake of player-choice. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2576	Posted - 2014.06.20 14:50:00 - [93] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Your enjoyment at the time of play will be enhanced if you stop trying to game the system, and just play it. Game the system? What are you going on about? Gaming the system is an exploitation of the rules to gain an advantage, How about you explain how you think I am exploiting the queue system and what advantage I gain over others using the queue system. Also how is playing a game mode I do not currently want to play enhancing my enjoyment? That statement makes no sense at all. Also you subscribed to too mutually exclusive statements. Which is it? a) The only intended result should be the enjoyment of the player at the time of play. or b) So just freaking play it. I do believe, he thinks you are avoiding harder fights in favor of easy ones you can win, this is a form of stat padding, win padding. it's similar in nature to that of milking academy games as experienced players, and takes many forms. the main gain from using such tactics is isk, you will lose less isk, and will gain much more by farming inexperienced unsquadded blueberries unable to deal with your drop ship or what ever tactic you wish to use, as opposed to fighting those who are indeed capable of it. In this instance you wish to favor ambush over OMS so it obvious has little to do with you wanting to use vehicles, or the type of opponent you wish to fight and more wanting to not deal with vehicles, but the same principles apply, IMO take it as you wish but I do believe this what was meant by his comment. as for the two statements it's quite possible for a person to enjoy games more by playing all games, if the person derives their enjoyment from over coming the challenge of all games and over coming everything that is thrown at them, I for one am a person of this type, some like yourself probably only draw enjoyment from a small subset of match types, thus you pick and choose.
Bethhy Ancient Exiles. General Tso's Alliance 1982	Posted - 2014.06.20 14:57:00 - [94] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps The problem isn't ambush with vehicles in OMS. The problem is the Structures and Spawn mechanics. You have a game mode where you can place CRU's, Turrets, Supply Depots anywhere.... There should be multiple spawn locations setup with all of these. 4-5... and large map scales. And spawn mechanics tweaked around these. If there was say.... 5 bases setup with 5 turrets, a Cru, a supply. And when one base and side get's overwhelemed so the spawn flips, They spawn on the opposite side of the map in another base. Allowing Offensive base gameplay and defensive. And places people can re equip and get situated. Ambushes problems are 100% spawn mechanics and Map construction. Not the players. A Sandbox is nice But you can't throw a bunch of sand in the middle of a field and call it a sand box. You HAVE to build the actual box, we will still find ways to step outside don't worry.
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 10376	Posted - 2014.06.20 14:59:00 - [95] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps I honestly hate the idea of having 2 Ambush modes. Not because it will divide the playerbase, but because I think it says something sad about the game modes we have. Domination is basically a tweaked version of Skirmish, and OMS is pretty much a tweaked version of Ambush. I'm sick of only getting modes that are just the exact same thing. For 2 years I have been asking for a mode with an attack/defend mode similar to the original Skirmish 1.0 of closed beta. In the original Skirmish, 1 team started out with an MCC slowly approaching the outpost for docking, the other started out with control of all objectives. The attackers had to destroy both defense relays (a type of objective controlling all installations), then that unlocked the next stage; a new portion of the map was "unlocked", and the attackers objective then became to disable the null cannons that threatened to destroy the MCC before the docking. I don't expect this kind of complexity to be possible, but how about a new version of Skirmish where the maps and objectives are just the same, but one team (defenders) starts out with the null cannons under their control. The other team start with no objective, but once they take control of an objective, the defenders cannot take it back. Attackers win once they take control of all objectives. I know this really simple dumbed down version of a multi-stage attack/defend mode will likely never happen, but if you somehow can make it happen, please do. Game modes were never given more than an ounce of attention in Dust. The current boring game mode situation to me is the absolute WORST aspect of this game, and it genuinely makes me angry because we had this really interesting and engaging mode (Skirmish 1.0) and it just got scrapped. I'm tired of doing the same things over and over. As sad as it would be to have 2 Ambushes and 0 actually good modes... yeah I guess you should separate them for the sake of player-choice. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
Ablerober Sea of Sin 36	Posted - 2014.06.20 15:16:00 - [96] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps Yes, I want to fight infantry with the assault, rail and combat rifles I've spent so long skilling into. I would also like to choose the Ambush mode so I know for sure that said skills won't go to waste aginst vehicles I have no skill in fighting and no desire to fight. Baby steps for sure - so far so good.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2748	Posted - 2014.06.20 16:10:00 - [97] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Your enjoyment at the time of play will be enhanced if you stop trying to game the system, and just play it. Game the system? What are you going on about? Gaming the system is an exploitation of the rules to gain an advantage, How about you explain how you think I am exploiting the queue system and what advantage I gain over others using the queue system. Also how is playing a game mode I do not currently want to play enhancing my enjoyment? That statement makes no sense at all. Also you subscribed to too mutually exclusive statements. Which is it? a) The only intended result should be the enjoyment of the player at the time of play. or b) So just freaking play it. Explained above, and asked and answered. I can't teach you reading/comprehension, man. The fact that you think those statements are mutually exclusive is demonstrating you don't understand what I said. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
IraqiFriendshipExplosive ACME SPECIAL FORCES RISE of LEGION 91	Posted - 2014.06.20 16:22:00 - [98] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps Have been absolutely LOVING ambush without vehicles. Win or lose every regular ambush I have been in has been great great fun! However yes please give us the option to queue for either Regular Ambush or OMS Ambush.
Stile451 Red Star. EoN. 343	Posted - 2014.06.20 16:27:00 - [99] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Make up your mind. Is it : a) The only intended result should be the enjoyment of the player at the time of play. or b) So just freaking play it. It cant be both but you seem to want to play both sides here. If you can't understand what I'm explaining to you, I don't really know what to tell you. Your enjoyment at the time of play will be enhanced if you stop trying to game the system, and just play it. This is how I understand it: Judge will spend more time in a game mode that he enjoys if he quits OMS and retries. He will spend more time in the lobby but will not be having a negative experience in OMS. He will still spend more time in regular ambush matches while quitting OMS than he would if he played as they came up. His overall enjoyment is increased by following this pattern. This makes sense to me - you play a game for enjoyment. If you aren't enjoying it then why play it(or the portion that you find unenjoyable)? Granted if a lot of players did this it would mess with the queue system but that may not be such a bad thing in the long run. CCP will see how many players are quitting when the see a certain game mode and be able to make a better informed decision based on those findings.
Ryme Intrinseca The Rainbow Effect 1373	Posted - 2014.06.20 16:27:00 - [100] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps I think two ambush queues would be a good next step. If you find that there's then insufficient demand for OMS that would be the time to take it out of rotation.

pyramidhead 420 Carbon 7 Iron Oxide. 548	Posted - 2014.06.20 16:54:00 - [101] - Quote Yokal Bob wrote: Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: OMS is still a tank happy lame fest. I fully recommend leaving battle right as soon as you see that OMS in the battle description. Oh shut up, they are out of standard ambush why can't you be happy with that because judge is a cry baby b!tch but most only know him as a nice youtube voice. imagine... cpm1 crybaby b!tch
Snake Sellors Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 105	Posted - 2014.06.20 17:35:00 - [102] - Quote i agree that if people don't enjoy going up against tanks they should have the choice, but to be honest I think the main problem is that if people want to attack vehicles they become vulnerable to infantry and vice versa, not everybody went with minmando for av reasons. I have to admit that coming up against tank and infantry squads is not fun, I had a rough experience yesterday where 2 shotty scouts and a rail rifle were being careful to kill anybody that tried to approach the tank or that were anywhere nearby. not fun.. that said, all that comes down to is a good tactic to be an efficient squad and not something to try changing the game for
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2578	Posted - 2014.06.20 17:37:00 - [103] - Quote Snake Sellors wrote: i agree that if people don't enjoy going up against tanks they should have the choice, but to be honest I think the main problem is that if people want to attack vehicles they become vulnerable to infantry and vice versa, not everybody went with minmando for av reasons. I have to admit that coming up against tank and infantry squads is not fun, I had a rough experience yesterday where 2 shotty scouts and a rail rifle were being careful to kill anybody that tried to approach the tank or that were anywhere nearby. not fun.. that said, all that comes down to is a good tactic to be an efficient squad and not something to try changing the game for heh what choices do you get about anything else? I don't want to face shotgun scouts or RE's, or heavies, where's my new mode?
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 877	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:05:00 - [104] - Quote So does anyone have a problem with keeping things as is but being able to make a choice? It seems the obvious way to go if it can be done. I know I'll exclusively play OMS, but I am in the minority. Because, that's why.
Mortedeamor Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1564	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:21:00 - [105] - Quote calisk galern wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Why on earth would you make the distinction of removing vehicles from non-OMS and keeping them in OMS when they're not even two distinct gamemodes? well back in the day infantry av could handle tanks, and thus oms was the only ambush game mode capable of handling tanks. now that infantry av can't handle tanks they should of removed them from oms as well. infantry av cant handle tanks rolfmao..yesterday i went on a solo spree with adv av ..killing tanks.. i used adv plc av nade re combo on amar logi swarm av nade re ona amar logi and dau assault forge av nade ona amar sentinel note i was soloing tanks in amar fitss...with NO COMPLEX ARMOR REPPERS... in short av is back
Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:22:00 - [106] - Quote Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you
Judge Rhadamanthus Amarr Templar One 2282	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:35:00 - [107] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you Go get banned again. It's been peaceful troll. Judge For CPM 1 youtube Twitter @Judge_EVELegion
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11179	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:43:00 - [108] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you So if someone points out a balance issue with railguns, they must want railguns completely removed. Makes total sense Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11181	Posted - 2014.06.21 03:08:00 - [109] - Quote /me waits for Rattati's decision Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1093	Posted - 2014.06.21 07:21:00 - [110] - Quote Greasepalms wrote: ambush is terrible even without vehicles. 50 clones and the game is over in a blink of an eye, waste of time. Exactly, the only reason I tolerate "ambush" is the hope that I'll get a OMS match that'll last maybe more than 5 minutes. Both ambush modes need 100+ clones; I'm thinking regular ambush 100 and OMS gets 150. I just want to fight and I really hate loading screens. Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.

Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1093	Posted - 2014.06.21 07:29:00 - [111] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you So if someone points out a balance issue with railguns, they must want railguns completely removed. Makes total sense Just ignore Taka, he is completely bias in favor of tanks. He doesn't care about overall balance as long as he can sit in his tank completely immune to most of the other players. Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1577	Posted - 2014.06.21 07:40:00 - [112] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: strokes broken Wyrikomi swarm launcher Off topic : But the dropship changes patched in yesterday - incubus swarm efficiency from 55% to 80%. Any noticeable effects? easier kills? I have not been hit with proto yet. very noticeably running away from two militia swarmers and being nervous around 1... Kind of happy for it but I have been seeing a lot of grouped swarmers because they actually mean something now... They make me very nervous... starter fits all around Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
gros - gay Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.06.21 08:16:00 - [113] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will first query the players if they like Ambush without vehicles. If that's a resounding yes, then we keep them. Then we can ask, do you want to be able to pick those specifically, again, if yes, then we can take OMS out of rotation or create two Ambush queues. Baby steps Yes sir! Normal Ambushes are now the best mode in the game :-) We can all play freely and have fun! I think it's the best thing you did for the pas 4-5 months ;) I dont think you should delete OMS Ambush as there'r only 4 different game mode in the game, but giving a way to pick Ambush or OMS specificaly is a goos thing ^^
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3663	Posted - 2014.06.21 08:58:00 - [114] - Quote Thumb Green wrote: Greasepalms wrote: ambush is terrible even without vehicles. 50 clones and the game is over in a blink of an eye, waste of time. Exactly, the only reason I tolerate "ambush" is the hope that I'll get a OMS match that'll last maybe more than 5 minutes. Both ambush modes need 100+ clones; I'm thinking regular ambush 100 and OMS gets 150. I just want to fight and I really hate loading screens. I dislike ambush. OMS is fun; the variety from supply depots and installations has always been more fun than regular ambush. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2014.06.21 13:02:00 - [115] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you So if someone points out a balance issue with railguns, they must want railguns completely removed. Makes total sense https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=130849 Yup He made a thread and it went to 18pages about how he wants to remove railguns
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11183	Posted - 2014.06.21 13:06:00 - [116] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you So if someone points out a balance issue with railguns, they must want railguns completely removed. Makes total sense https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=130849 Yup He made a thread and it went to 18pages about how he wants to remove railguns Read it again. Feel free to watch his video as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHy6CXWk3K4 It is pretty obvious he didn't want them removed, only balanced. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2014.06.21 13:22:00 - [117] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you So if someone points out a balance issue with railguns, they must want railguns completely removed. Makes total sense https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=130849 Yup He made a thread and it went to 18pages about how he wants to remove railguns Read it again. Feel free to watch his video as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHy6CXWk3K4 It is pretty obvious he didn't want them removed, only balanced. Yea i read it He wants to remove rail turrets so he can hover in safety
JudgeIsABadPilot Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2014.06.23 17:49:00 - [118] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Cry moar You wanted railguns to be deleted from the game because they killed you You complained about the MCC causing so much damage because you flew into it Now you dont like OMS because yet again vehicles can kill you If you didnt back out as much as you do and got good at the game then maybe it wouldnt be a problem for you Go get banned again. It's been peaceful troll. It will be peaceful when crybabys like you stop gaming and let things exist as the developers intend. Why don't you get good, and move to Call of Duty?
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9768	Posted - 2014.06.23 18:33:00 - [119] - Quote JudgeIsABadPilot wrote: It will be peaceful when crybabys like you stop gaming and let things exist as the developers intend. Why don't you get good, and move to Call of Duty? I think it would be an even more peaceful place when players who are incapable of forming an argument without the heavy use of false statements & logical fallacies are expelled from the playerbase. On an unrelated note, I wonder how long it will take for the DEV/GMs to rename your character to "Minmatar Mercenary 02134". Sets Stopwatch I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD 230	Posted - 2014.06.23 20:55:00 - [120] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Your enjoyment at the time of play will be enhanced if you stop trying to game the system, and just play it. Game the system? What are you going on about? Gaming the system is an exploitation of the rules to gain an advantage, How about you explain how you think I am exploiting the queue system and what advantage I gain over others using the queue system. Also how is playing a game mode I do not currently want to play enhancing my enjoyment? That statement makes no sense at all. Also you subscribed to too mutually exclusive statements. Which is it? a) The only intended result should be the enjoyment of the player at the time of play. or b) So just freaking play it. You talk about fixing exploitations that concern you, but have you ever talked about the ADS skill stack? Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page