Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS
1423
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:15:00 -
[61] - Quote
Abu Stij wrote:One person suggested that the "AWOXer be moved to the other team" so that in essence you go from a 16vs16 match to say an 15vs17 match. That's something that is fairly reasonable and most could agree is acceptable for an in-game mechanic to prevent AWOXing during the middle of the match.
He sounds handsome
Sloth9230 wrote:We don't need to kick them, just mark them as an enemy. So a 16 on 16 just turned into a 15 on 17, you'll live. Indeed. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS
1423
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
Odiain Suliis wrote:Problem with this marking the infiltrator red and then the infiltrator using the 'enemys' clones is that this opens up a whole new can-of-worms.
Suppose the 'infiltrator' and his corp mark the infiltrator intentionally 'red' just to deplete the enemys clones faster. Then only give them 1 clone, and give the other team the option of taking them in as an ally if they're willing to share their supply. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:24:00 -
[63] - Quote
King Kobrah wrote: Pretty sure this is the 4th wall of text I've gotten you to rattle off today, and they all boil down to one or two fallacies and ad hominem attacks. You're trying so hard to make some kind of a convoluted point about "meta-gaming" taking any amount of skill or complexity when that's obviously not the case here...have you even played this game?
i'll give it a 2/10 for getting me to reply
Junior, if you think that was a "wall of text" I really would like to talk to your gradeschool teachers.
You've yet to really counter any of the points about the meta-game being less important than your suggest it to be outside of "lol you're dumb" I know words are hard for you to form, and grammatically sound sentences confuse you but please try your best.
Since you are asserting any "meta-game" is actually super easy and playing the FPS aspect of the game is the real "challenge" please, explain your point more thorougly. I'm all ears. Thus far you've just said "lol spying isn't hard, and costing matches isn't at all challenging." I really do want to know how you think pointing your gun and clicking a button makes anything like infiltrating and gouging of corporation assets less challenging or even important at all to DUST. I explained it prevoiusly, the less stuff you have, the less successful you'll be. You seem unable to grasp that despite simplistic examples. I provided examples of market manipulation which you went on to laugh and not actually counter with a sound rebuttal outside of "LOOOOOOOOOOOL", I get it these things are complicated for you, but really if you want to try and be a forum warrior at least bring better weapons to the table kid.
Sloth9230 wrote:We don't need to kick them, just mark them as an enemy. So a 16 on 16 just turned into a 15 on 17, you'll live. Indeed.[/quote]
I wasn't sure if yours was the original post I saw or not. It's a valid proposal to the issue. |
Surt gods end
Demon Ronin
117
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
No need to VTK. Just option to place the spies back to their team. Un-even? yup. But if your gun game is up to par, then who cares? every player on your team should be able to take out 2 to three players per death. That's minimum in most fps.
FPS > meta. look at the vid HELLSTORM put up against Betamax. *did jenza just rage quit?* Looked like it huh?
Dust isn't eve. At least not the way the RP or "meta" can crush an enemy on there. You can make tactics and bribes. buy solders, and spys, but in the end.. we all meet in the same field. FPS > meta.
"Diplomats always want to talk. negotiate truths or treaties to extend their lives. Warriors meet in battlefield, and settle who lives and who gets to die. That's why they are never respected, and history and media are filled with tales of us" |
King Kobrah
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
368
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:39:00 -
[65] - Quote
Abu Stij wrote:King Kobrah wrote: Pretty sure this is the 4th wall of text I've gotten you to rattle off today, and they all boil down to one or two fallacies and ad hominem attacks. You're trying so hard to make some kind of a convoluted point about "meta-gaming" taking any amount of skill or complexity when that's obviously not the case here...have you even played this game?
i'll give it a 2/10 for getting me to reply
Junior, if you think that was a "wall of text" I really would like to talk to your gradeschool teachers. You've yet to really counter any of the points about the meta-game being less important than your suggest it to be outside of "lol you're dumb" I know words are hard for you to form, and grammatically sound sentences confuse you but please try your best. Since you are asserting any "meta-game" is actually super easy and playing the FPS aspect of the game is the real "challenge" please, explain your point more thorougly. I'm all ears. Thus far you've just said "lol spying isn't hard, and costing matches isn't at all challenging." I really do want to know how you think pointing your gun and clicking a button makes anything like infiltrating and gouging of corporation assets less challenging or even important at all to DUST. I explained it prevoiusly, the less stuff you have, the less successful you'll be. You seem unable to grasp that despite simplistic examples. I provided examples of market manipulation which you went on to laugh and not actually counter with a sound rebuttal outside of "LOOOOOOOOOOOL", I get it these things are complicated for you, but really if you want to try and be a forum warrior at least bring better weapons to the table kid. Sloth9230 wrote:We don't need to kick them, just mark them as an enemy. So a 16 on 16 just turned into a 15 on 17, you'll live. I wasn't sure if yours was the original post I saw or not. It's a valid proposal to the issue. There's another 12 lines of text I'm not going to bother reading, just like the last essay you wrote for me. If you can't grasp the concept of skilled players wanting to actually play the game rather than fish for easy wins, that's pretty pathetic. |
Eltra Ardell
Goonfeet
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:46:00 -
[66] - Quote
King Kobrah wrote: There's another 12 lines of text I'm not going to bother reading, just like the last essay you wrote for me. If you can't grasp the concept of skilled players wanting to actually play the game rather than fish for easy wins, that's pretty pathetic.
Why are you so afraid of finding that your leet FPS skillz aren't actually necessary? DUST isn't a generic FPS where the only things that matter are your ability to twitch faster than the other guy, build a decent loadout, and yell at other players. The game doesn't only take place on a map. Your tools aren't only your guns and equipment. Victory isn't only claimed by killing others and taking points. In fact, if that's how you're claiming victory, then someone, somewhere, didn't do his damned job.
DUST is an FPS with a rich metagame. It's not a meat grinder, and you should stop treating it as such. There are plenty of meat grinder FPSes out there waiting for you. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and even Team Fortress 2 might be more your style. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:50:00 -
[67] - Quote
King Kobrah wrote: There's another 12 lines of text I'm not going to bother reading, just like the last essay you wrote for me. If you can't grasp the concept of skilled players wanting to actually play the game rather than fish for easy wins, that's pretty pathetic.
Another 12 lines you didn't read, but then respond to what I said in those 12 lines.
Congrats you've proven again, you're really bad at forming a coherent argument. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
3098
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 05:01:00 -
[68] - Quote
If someone is kicked from a PC match, I don't think they should be thrown out instantly, and I ALSO don't think they should be put on the other team.
They should be simply barred from respawning. They die, they're out. They stay alive, they can keep doing what they're doing.
But in the first place, CEOs need to be able to assign roles other than "Director" in DUST. We need the ability to have CEO and Director with full (or nearly full) access, then have specialised roles with the ability to do different things. Regular Corp members should be able to join PC matches alone or with a squad entirely consisting of Corpmates.
We should have a Battlefield Commander role in which a Corp member with the title (or a CEO/Director) can block other Corp members or non-members from entering PC. Give a quick-select tool to "block all" and "unblock all" if needed, so you can shut down anyone but the players designated for that battle and avoid unauthorised wasting of clones, or while the battles in progress you can quickly open the field if you lose a player and say "who's available?" rather than having to sort through and find the appropriate member to unblock. You could also allow these Commanders to declare attacks on enemy Corps. Or have a Commander role and a Field Commander role with one having access to attack orders and the other not.
It would also help if you needed to have a "Squad Leader" title before you could bring non-members into a Corp Battle. Any Corp member can create a squad of Corpmates and join (unless blocked), but only a Squad Leader (or, obviously, Commander/Director/CEO) can supply ringers.
This would also open the way to having non-combat roles like a Treasurer with wallet access but without the combat-related controls. |
ZiwZih
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
152
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 05:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:If someone is kicked from a PC match, I don't think they should be thrown out instantly, and I ALSO don't think they should be put on the other team.
They should be simply barred from respawning. They die, they're out. They stay alive, they can keep doing what they're doing.
But in the first place, CEOs need to be able to assign roles other than "Director" in DUST. We need the ability to have CEO and Director with full (or nearly full) access, then have specialised roles with the ability to do different things. Regular Corp members should be able to join PC matches alone or with a squad entirely consisting of Corpmates.
We should have a Battlefield Commander role in which a Corp member with the title (or a CEO/Director) can block other Corp members or non-members from entering PC. Give a quick-select tool to "block all" and "unblock all" if needed, so you can shut down anyone but the players designated for that battle and avoid unauthorised wasting of clones, or while the battles in progress you can quickly open the field if you lose a player and say "who's available?" rather than having to sort through and find the appropriate member to unblock. You could also allow these Commanders to declare attacks on enemy Corps. Or have a Commander role and a Field Commander role with one having access to attack orders and the other not.
It would also help if you needed to have a "Squad Leader" title before you could bring non-members into a Corp Battle. Any Corp member can create a squad of Corpmates and join (unless blocked), but only a Squad Leader (or, obviously, Commander/Director/CEO) can supply ringers.
This would also open the way to having non-combat roles like a Treasurer with wallet access but without the combat-related controls.
Yes Garrett, but the question is now are they able to fix this lolAWOXing, glitched PC and implement roles in a hotfix or we will have to wait for a new build and whole sending-it-to-Sony-on-review cycle like we have to for proper KBM controls...
Hope we get some answers these days.
|
Zion Shad
ZionTCD Unclaimed.
1773
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 05:43:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple.
1. Corporations should be able to restrict who and how players join
2. Corporations should be able to kick Crashers from a match
CCP had mentioned previously to the community wanting to put a roster system into the game and was unable to do so in time for the launch of Planetary Conquest. As it stands right now it is far too easy to infiltrate a match and requires no real breach of trust.
This breach of trust is what makes spying and espionage of value and a unique aspect of New Eden and should not be stamped out. As it stands now though, because there are no real game mechanics to control the matches, AWOXING is a broken game mechanic.
Agree.
We own these closes and we should be able to shut them down.
Nice post Kain |
|
Heinz Doofenshertz
BetaMax. CRONOS.
397
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 05:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
any glitches that are server side or come under "game balance" can be hotfixed, roles, and input changes have to be reviewed
to the Subject, The Meta is part of the game, ignoring it, will result in a very very bad day for you coming one day, when you give the wrong person roles, and they take everything you have worked for, and your gun game will have been for nothing.
Am I saying gungame has no place, no. What I am saying is never think your enemy will not pull every dirty trick in the book to beat you, this is war after all, there are no rules. The best way to keep this from happening is the have better recruitment, and to not trust anyone who is still alive. Do no give roles to anyone you don't trust. because the meta game is there, and they will use it against you |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
1745
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 06:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
Abu Stij wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:
lol
Trust me, only scrubby corps and players think this way. Real competitive gamers, and people with the slightest backbone and testicular fortitude have nothing to do with this lazy ass, none skilled, scrubby, **** stain you're trying to lay off as a tactic.
That's why you're in Betamax. Be happy with your blue donut, EZ mode, lazy ass way of playing a FPS. "Oh we're not good enough with guns, so let's exploit the **** mechanic CCP has in place, and call that "spy work".
Pathetic. Glad people like you have NOTHING to do with corps in EoN.
Apparently you've never played a CCP game before, nor understand the whole point of a game like DUST being part of EVE Online. But sure bud, just keep pretending you're super special "honor" is of any value.
I like how goons come in here acting high and mighty and talking about honor...and even quoting me? Where did I say honor? Next time you put something in quotation marks, make sure it's AN ACTUAL QUOTE
Who gives a **** about honor?! What I care about is skill. People who are actually good at the game and not relying on a broken mechanic to get wins. Make no mistake, the current way of getting people into games is broken.
You like talking about EVE, well correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you kick people out the fleet in EVE?
But hey, it brings me right back to bad players relying on **** to win games. Why bother with skill
When these little **** stains get patch, I wonder what else bad players gonna rely on, cuz it's sure as hell not their gun game. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
965
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:41:00 -
[73] - Quote
All we need is a role that CEO/Directors can assign to a player in their corp " [ ] Can join PC"
I am vehemently opposed to any notions of allowing players any ability whatsoever to kick people from matches. I will fight tooth and nail to stop anything of the sort from ever touching dust.
It should be harder to worm your way onto an enemy team... but there should be no easy "Whatever, GTFO" button. If they do manage to worm their way into your match, you should have to live with whatever consequences you allow them to inflict. Because in reality, this would never be what that button is used for, even if that is the intended purpose.
Director doesn't like your voice? Kick.
Director doesn't like you in general? Kick.
Director wants his BFF who has much worse stats and equipment than you in the match? Kick.
Director upset because he ran into your line and fire and got himself teamkilled? Kick.
Giving players the ability to kick others in a pvp shooter has almost universally proven itself to be a bad idea.
Edit: Also, kicking people from fleet is a poor comparison. The person is still in space. They're still able to participate in the battle if they /really/ want to. (Some fleets will just shoot non purples, and if you're in a lame fleet waiting for a titan jump, these are exceptions)
In dust, giving one person the ability to deny others' gameplay is a very poor prospect. Restrict who can join via roles.
It's the difference between saying "You can join our PC battles when you're ready and we trust you" and "You suck, useless scrub. Get the **** out of my match." |
G Torq
ALTA B2O
145
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple.
1. Corporations should be able to restrict who and how players join
This already exists:
- Limit who joins your corp
- Ensure communication in your corp works
- Remove non-complient corp-members from corp
Why should CCP waste development effort, simply because your copr has ****** up and let in blueberries, "spais" and people who simply want to have fun at your expense?
or:
"Uh, look at us, we have a shitload of members .... why are our shitload of members not behaving as I want? *waaaah*" |
Finn Kempers
BetaMax. CRONOS.
222
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
How about not kicking, but stopping them from spawning. That way the damage of treachery can be done, but also mitigated. |
Argo Filch
BetaMax. CRONOS.
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:48:00 -
[76] - Quote
I agree on the no kicking thing. Just make it so that the Team Leader or whatsit can deny the offending party additional clones in that match. That would make sense in a rp way. The offending party can still do damage as long as they play it smart and stay alive.
Edith: yeah what FinnK said |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
966
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Stopping someone from spawning or 'denying them clones' is still a kick. The system kicks you out if you don't (or can't) spawn.
If someone manages to worm their way in after a role is made required to join PC... They should stay in. |
Argo Filch
BetaMax. CRONOS.
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:53:00 -
[78] - Quote
Then the system has to change. It's not that there will be a fix implemented in the next two weeks or so. There'd be time to make it so that the offending party stays ingame but can't spawn anymore. There'd be no replacement for him or anything. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
966
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Argo Filch wrote:Then the system has to change. It's not that there will be a fix implemented in the next two weeks or so. There'd be time to make it so that the offending party stays ingame but can't spawn anymore. There'd be no replacement for him or anything.
You're missing the point.
The point is... The person should be allowed to carry out their mischeif. They've burned and alt which is likely going to be kicked out of the corp to do it. There should be no "easy out" for the corporation being sabotaged that simply lets them stop the sabotage from a context menu. That's horrible. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
1745
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:56:00 -
[80] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:Stopping someone from spawning or 'denying them clones' is still a kick. The system kicks you out if you don't (or can't) spawn.
If someone manages to worm their way in after a role is made required to join PC... They should stay in.
Bottom line is CEO or Directors should be able to choose who to fight their battles. Kick / no kick, don't really care tbh.
My lulz is a person in charge of a corp now has NO POWER over who plays in games right now.
Edit: also please note the amount of new players that stand no chance of getting into a decent corp for PC. Normally I'll scout around there for new comers, but these days, I'm not wasting time, and I'm sure many others have the same idea. |
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
BetaMax. CRONOS.
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple.
1. Corporations should be able to restrict who and how players join
2. Corporations should be able to kick Crashers from a match
CCP had mentioned previously to the community wanting to put a roster system into the game and was unable to do so in time for the launch of Planetary Conquest. As it stands right now it is far too easy to infiltrate a match and requires no real breach of trust.
This breach of trust is what makes spying and espionage of value and a unique aspect of New Eden and should not be stamped out. As it stands now though, because there are no real game mechanics to control the matches, AWOXING is a broken game mechanic.
Everyone agree on point one, but point two is just unacceptable. How do you imagine "Sabotage" role in future? |
Argo Filch
BetaMax. CRONOS.
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:06:00 -
[82] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote: You're missing the point.
The point is... The person should be allowed to carry out their mischeif. They've burned and alt which is likely going to be kicked out of the corp to do it. There should be no "easy out" for the corporation being sabotaged that simply lets them stop the sabotage from a context menu. That's horrible.
the problem with not being able to deal with those people in match is that you can just throw it if it is infiltrated... people are always pulling up analogies to eve on this subject... then i'll do the same... if you have a dude in fleet that starts killing your own people you can deal with him and remove him from the field, by killing him dead and podding him. in dust as it stands now you can't do **** about things after the offending party got in match. you have no way of removing him. then if you don't want to have a 'kick' button then give the 'victimes' some form of tacnet disabling weapon so they have to change their suits to get that and hunt down the offending party to remove him. and after he is removed the game can at least progress further... the 'victims' are still at an disadvantage but there's a chance to turn around stuff.
but not having any kind of option is worse because as soon as somebody infiltrated a game you can just throw the towel for that match and lean back and don't spawn in anymore, because there's nothing you can do really.
i just want another way to deal with it then just saying "**** it, we can't do anything anyway now!" |
Finn Kempers
BetaMax. CRONOS.
222
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:Stopping someone from spawning or 'denying them clones' is still a kick. The system kicks you out if you don't (or can't) spawn.
If someone manages to worm their way in after a role is made required to join PC... They should stay in. Grit breather made a good point that a team leader then should be able to highlight a susceptible spy purple instead of blue, thus allows people to know who has been caught red handed. This means havoc happens, but if the spy is very bad at hiding, he will be shot at. |
Kevall Longstride
DUST University Ivy League
224
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple.
1. Corporations should be able to restrict who and how players join
2. Corporations should be able to kick Crashers from a match
CCP had mentioned previously to the community wanting to put a roster system into the game and was unable to do so in time for the launch of Planetary Conquest. As it stands right now it is far too easy to infiltrate a match and requires no real breach of trust.
This breach of trust is what makes spying and espionage of value and a unique aspect of New Eden and should not be stamped out. As it stands now though, because there are no real game mechanics to control the matches, AWOXING is a broken game mechanic.
Pretty much my stance too.
I may be considered biased because D-UNI were the first AWOXED corp but its currently too easy to do and could be detrimental to the growth of PC if corrps are getting done over too much.
This kind of tactic is par for the course in Eve but our console owning friends are going to get turned off from playing in PC if it can be sabotaged too easily. |
Sylwester Dziewiecki
BetaMax. CRONOS.
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
Argo Filch wrote:Nova Knife wrote: You're missing the point.
The point is... The person should be allowed to carry out their mischeif. They've burned and alt which is likely going to be kicked out of the corp to do it. There should be no "easy out" for the corporation being sabotaged that simply lets them stop the sabotage from a context menu. That's horrible.
the problem with not being able to deal with those people in match is that you can just throw it if it is infiltrated... people are always pulling up analogies to eve on this subject... then i'll do the same... if you have a dude in fleet that starts killing your own people you can deal with him and remove him from the field, by killing him dead and podding him. in dust as it stands now you can't do **** about things after the offending party got in match. you have no way of removing him. then if you don't want to have a 'kick' button then give the 'victimes' some form of tacnet disabling weapon so they have to change their suits to get that and hunt down the offending party to remove him. and after he is removed the game can at least progress further... the 'victims' are still at an disadvantage but there's a chance to turn around stuff. but not having any kind of option is worse because as soon as somebody infiltrated a game you can just throw the towel for that match and lean back and don't spawn in anymore, because there's nothing you can do really. i just want another way to deal with it then just saying "**** it, we can't do anything anyway now!" EVE analogies: this guy would be more successful as a spy if he would remain 'silent', and when his friendly fleet engage his own, he could transfer information about who is primary/secondary so he could warp off untouched.
If we remove 'sabotage' role from the game that it currently occupate, to balance it we will have to implement it on different level - like transferring district or corporation assets freely.
I think that second point of Kain Spero is unacceptable because it will completely remove any kind of 'sabotage' action that simple player without roles can take. If he will try to kill his teammates, 'play for time', not reviving his teammates, not repair armor, not hacking objectives - he will be instantly kicked from math. This mechanic will not only annihilated current 'sabotage' role, but also its related varieties of today 'sabotage' that did not born yet. It will completely cut us from evolution of sabotage that might have occurred. This is like a implementing mechanic that will fix problem that not yet even occurred, but it will in future.
'Officiousness is worse than fascism' |
DeeJay One
BetaMax. CRONOS.
28
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 09:59:00 -
[86] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple. 2. Corporations should be able to kick Crashers from a match
Yes, but it should have drawbacks, such as leaving the spot closed for other players or closed for X minutes at least. Otherwise this would be abused (ex. "this team member is worse, my buddy just came online, let's bring him in") |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Unclaimed.
528
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:43:00 -
[87] - Quote
Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Heinz Doofenshertz wrote:. 3 Always expect your enemies to do the easiest thing possible for them to win lol Trust me, only scrubby corps and players think this way. Real competitive gamers, and people with the slightest backbone and testicular fortitude have nothing to do with this lazy ass, none skilled, scrubby, **** stain you're trying to lay off as a tactic. That's why you're in Betamax. Be happy with your blue donut, EZ mode, lazy ass way of playing a FPS. "Oh we're not good enough with guns, so let's exploit the **** mechanic CCP has in place, and call that "spy work". Pathetic. Glad people like you have NOTHING to do with corps in EoN. Ha.
Bro, i have a heads up for you.
For the first time in all your years of fps gaming, you're about to experience WAR.
And it ain't pretty. |
Finn Kempers
BetaMax. CRONOS.
223
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:46:00 -
[88] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Heinz Doofenshertz wrote:. 3 Always expect your enemies to do the easiest thing possible for them to win lol Trust me, only scrubby corps and players think this way. Real competitive gamers, and people with the slightest backbone and testicular fortitude have nothing to do with this lazy ass, none skilled, scrubby, **** stain you're trying to lay off as a tactic. That's why you're in Betamax. Be happy with your blue donut, EZ mode, lazy ass way of playing a FPS. "Oh we're not good enough with guns, so let's exploit the **** mechanic CCP has in place, and call that "spy work". Pathetic. Glad people like you have NOTHING to do with corps in EoN. Ha. Bro, i have a heads up for you. For the first time in all your years of fps gaming, you're about to experience WAR. And it ain't pretty. This. It's bloody New Eden. If you expect Goonswarm to come in with the same number as you of guys and keep it fair, then expect a rocket to the face. |
Kitten Empress
Ametat Security Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
Yes to 1. No to 2. Unless the players stay in the battle and become enemies, then no. In EVE, if you kick someone from the fleet, its not like he is teleported back to the CQ, he is still there and can still do damage just fine. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
947
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 13:52:00 -
[90] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:My stand on this is simple.
1. Corporations should be able to restrict who and how players join
2. Corporations should be able to kick Crashers from a match
1) I'm absolutely fine with some kind of "ringer" role that enables someone to join a match without an invite. I'm also okay with an "inviter" role that limits who can issue invites to the battles.
2) I'm only okay with this if no additional people can join the battle (provided we have the roles as above). There should be a penalty for failing in the metagame.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |