Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:37:00 -
[121] - Quote
Well you're just full of dumb ideas, aren't you?
Tell me more about that pve supercarrier idea you had. |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:40:00 -
[122] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:You make it safe, thanks to the game mechanics. So the players make it safe, because the game mechanics make it safe. Nice.
Highsec players make good isk, because the game mechanics allow them to make good isk. Quite nice indeed. So stop whining about highsec?
No highsec carebear argues against risk vs reward, but there seems to be a lack of risk in 0.0. Goons seems to make sound like arguing for nerfing rewards is a good thing, but arguing for increasing risks in 0.0 space is stupid...
|
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:41:00 -
[123] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:make all of highsec into 0.0 so everyone can be as safe as us nullsec dwellers let all of the autopiloting freighters see how safe it is remove local from game, let's see all the 0.0 bears see what unconsensual pvp is then. Sure, turn all of EVE into sov 0.0 and turn off local should be fun but I mean really, if we're all so safe like you've been claiming, you should have no problem with all of highsec being turned into 0.0 and thus everyone enjoying equal safety, right?
I agree, let's do that. |
Taurich Vorsel
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:41:00 -
[124] - Quote
Cebraio wrote:Oh hello, nice alt. Taurich Vorsel wrote: Oh I'm sorry, is it common practice for gankers to bring neutral alts with them?
In cases where they expect valuable loot drops, yes. In cases like Hulk ganks, probably not. Taurich Vorsel wrote: Then use the damn tactic...
No thanks. Why would I listen to you anyway? I'm not a miner and I'm not that stupid. I just like to point out when people make silly suggestions and present them as solutions for surviving a gank. These kind of suggestions happen a lot on that topic. There are many ways to avoid ganks or increase survivability. This one is probably the worst. Also, as soon as miners would use this tactic (lol), gankers would surely bring neutral alts. Taurich Vorsel wrote: Seems worth it to me for a chance to evade otherwise certain death
Then go ahead and prove to us that it works. Good luck. It is a nice alt isn't it? I'm surprised you were able to figure it out, I figured that listing my mains name in my sig and having the same avatar as my main but facing the other way with black hair might have been a tad subtle for most. You sir are in line for detective of the year.
Really, your argument for why this won't work is because gankers will bring a counter? Have you some magical tactic that gankers won't bother to counter? Of course you don't
No, I'm not going to grind my sec status positive again and skill for a hulk just so I can prove to you that ECM functions as intended. It's game mechanics, I already know it works. Feel free to name some midslot modules that would be more likely to save your ass than ECM burst please. Copine Callmeknau disappeared one day now we are left with Taurich Vorsel AKA BIZARRO COPE! |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:45:00 -
[125] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Well you're just full of dumb ideas, aren't you?
Tell me more about that pve supercarrier idea you had.
Tell me more about, how it was necessary to add Sov4, sov upgrades, JB, Cynojammers into the game.
Tell me more about the complex game mechanics behind watching local channel.
Tell me more about the fact, that TEST alliance can lose every asset they have in 0.0 space. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:47:00 -
[126] - Quote
Valek Noor wrote:this age old long winded argument basically comes to one thing if you stand far enough back
the ability to go AFK
folks in empire seem to think they should be safe as houses if they leave there PC for a while, carry on mining/hauling AFK while they go do something else, CCP and the game should protect them while they make ooodles of isk risk free
Null sec folks know different- leave PC while not safe = death
Stupid enough not to warp when red comes into local when mining = death
null sec folks ganking in empire are merely trying to help educate those in empire to the higher aspects of the game.........
It really is as clear as mud when you look at it
Or, to read it in practice, you setup the warn utility to beep when any neutral enters in local and when it happens either you stop watching dirty videos and alt tab and warp to safe or a macro will do it for you.
Got it.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:50:00 -
[127] - Quote
I love highsec. especially trade hubs like Hek. noone watches local as often as they do in nullsec. makes an easier time to surprise victims. |
Narcan Pandora
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:53:00 -
[128] - Quote
You should not remove the safety of high-sec. You should put more rewards in low and nul sec. Get them to come out. |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
Narcan Pandora wrote:You should not remove the safety of high-sec. You should put more rewards in low and nul sec. Get them to come out.
This topic is about adding risk to 0.0. |
InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:07:00 -
[130] - Quote
Hey, let's make some more threads about goons! I saw a goon the other day! He got shot and cried all over the forums about it. No, I don't have any links.
Goons sure are irrelevant, let's post more threads about them to really drive that point home. Literally everyone in this thread who isn't in goonswarm is a goon alt.
I think that should take care of this thread, go ahead and close it now, ISD. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |
|
Cebraio
Starfire Oasis
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:12:00 -
[131] - Quote
Taurich Vorsel wrote: It is a nice alt isn't it? I'm surprised you were able to figure it out, I figured that listing my mains name in my sig and having the same avatar as my main but facing the other way with black hair might have been a tad subtle for most. You sir are in line for detective of the year.
Thanks, I'm honored. But actually it was easier than that: Your portrait did not show up when you posted. It only shows now.
Taurich Vorsel wrote: Really, your argument for why this won't work is because gankers will bring a counter? Have you some magical tactic that gankers won't bother to counter? Of course you don't
Fit hulk with shield extenders, invulns and deployed ECM drones. Have support with shield transporters (orca and /or logis). I think gankers won't bother to counter that, if there are weaker targets around.
Taurich Vorsel wrote: No, I'm not going to grind my sec status positive again and skill for a hulk just so I can prove to you that ECM functions as intended. It's game mechanics, I already know it works.
You don't have to grind, since you have this alt. But this shows, you are making a suggestion that clearly doesn't work in many cases and that you never have tried.
Taurich Vorsel wrote: Feel free to name some midslot modules that would be more likely to save your ass than ECM burst please.
See above.
To list the flaws in your theory: ECM burst does not work when.. - one neutral happens to be around - one neutral is brought in by gankers (either from the beginning, or when they see the target uses lol ECM burst) - one neutral is already cloaked there, as a warp in point (I guess ECM burst affects cloaked ships. Could be wrong though) - gankers use ships that are out of burst radius (though unlikely against Hulks) - Hulk runs out of capacitor (after aprox. 3 activations) - ... There are probably more fail situations.
Now please, admit it's a stupid idea and get over it. Either way, I'm done with this discussion.
|
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:24:00 -
[132] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. the game mechanics allow me to shoot literally anybody i want in nullsec without some arbitrary time window in which I have to kill them before I'm popped by ridiculously overpowered peacekeepers ergo, nullsec is actually risky 1. Goons mine 0.0 in hulks. 2. Neutral/red jumps into system. 3. Goons warp to pos/ss/station. What is the counter? In 0.0 you can use local for 100% perfect defense, in highsec you cannot. Keep telling yourself stories about arbitrary time windows, fact is 0.0 hulk safer than in highsec. The same thing can happen in high sec too. If you pay attention to local you can't lose a ship in highsec too. What's your point? |
baltec1
1592
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:30:00 -
[133] - Quote
Taurich Vorsel wrote:
No, I'm not going to grind my sec status positive again and skill for a hulk just so I can prove to you that ECM functions as intended. It's game mechanics, I already know it works. Feel free to name some midslot modules that would be more likely to save your ass than ECM burst please.
A tank perhaps? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1412
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:35:00 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:Now, mining is more dangerous in highsec(because local is of no help). Time to add some risk to the 0.0, to balance things out. mining in highsec requires you fit a tank, then no catalyst poses a threat. Many don't do this however. However all hulks in 0.0 require tanks if only to suck up the damage from belt rats. All solo hulks do this. Thus, belt rats in 0.0 alone pose a greater threat to miners then suicide gankers do.
|
Chokichi Ozuwara
Royal One Piece Corporation Deadly Unknown
368
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:37:00 -
[135] - Quote
Wormholes are much more dangerous than 0.0 Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1412
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:38:00 -
[136] - Quote
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:Wormholes are much more dangerous than 0.0 Then why do they have the least amount of losses per player then every other region except for highsec? |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:54:00 -
[137] - Quote
Mithrantir Ob'lontra wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. the game mechanics allow me to shoot literally anybody i want in nullsec without some arbitrary time window in which I have to kill them before I'm popped by ridiculously overpowered peacekeepers ergo, nullsec is actually risky 1. Goons mine 0.0 in hulks. 2. Neutral/red jumps into system. 3. Goons warp to pos/ss/station. What is the counter? In 0.0 you can use local for 100% perfect defense, in highsec you cannot. Keep telling yourself stories about arbitrary time windows, fact is 0.0 hulk safer than in highsec. The same thing can happen in high sec too. If you pay attention to local you can't lose a ship in highsec too. What's your point?
Doesn't work because,
1. you only know if someone is hostile to you after they have ganked you.
2. there is random traffic, that doesn't affect you.
If Every alliance had every corp/alliance blue by default and if you could remotely join any local channel in the game, then maybe you would have a point. In fact, if they reversed the change of showing standings in local - that would be a good start. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1387
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:54:00 -
[138] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. Players and collective effort are what made it safe, not game mechanics. Don't like spaceships sandbox? then this is not the game for you. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:55:00 -
[139] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
but I mean really, if we're all so safe like you've been claiming, you should have no problem with all of highsec being turned into 0.0 and thus everyone enjoying equal safety, right?
I agree, let's do that. edit: Also, before that, major nerfs to defensive infrastructure. Sure. Quote:Now, mining is more dangerous in highsec(because local is of no help). Time to add some risk to the 0.0, to balance things out. if you fit a tank, then no catalyst poses a threat to your hulk. Many don't do this however. However all hulks in 0.0 require tanks if only to suck up the damage from belt rats. All solo hulks do this. Thus, belt rats in 0.0 alone pose a greater threat to miners then suicide gankers do.
Funny how 0.0 rats pose a greater threat on 0.0 hulks than any 0.0 player does. |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:56:00 -
[140] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. Players and collective effort are what made it safe, not game mechanics.
Tell me more about the collective effort of watching local channel.
edit: if you removed local, you would actually have to have collective effort - having intel, having semi-pve-pvp fit, having backup ready in station and what not - all of this would require teamwork, rather "oh, someone in local, within 15 seconds I have warped to pos/ss/station." |
|
Generals4
966
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:57:00 -
[141] - Quote
Mithrantir Ob'lontra wrote: The same thing can happen in high sec too. If you pay attention to local you can't lose a ship in highsec too. What's your point?
Realistically speaking not. If one were to use local in high as it is used in null one wouldn't ever be able to undock. -Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1412
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 16:58:00 -
[142] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:[quote=TotalCareBear] Quote:Now, mining is more dangerous in highsec(because local is of no help). Time to add some risk to the 0.0, to balance things out. if you fit a tank, then no catalyst poses a threat to your hulk. Many don't do this however. However all hulks in 0.0 require tanks if only to suck up the damage from belt rats. All solo hulks do this. Thus, belt rats in 0.0 alone pose a greater threat to miners then suicide gankers do. Funny how 0.0 rats pose a greater threat on 0.0 hulks than any 0.0 player does. Haha you misread. 0.0 rats pose a greater threat on 0.0 hulks then any highsec ganker poses to any highsec miner. That's not an empty claim, that is empirically verifiable fact. It simply goes without saying that any 0.0 player aggresses a 0.0 miner, the miner is dead. |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:03:00 -
[143] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:[quote=TotalCareBear] Quote:Now, mining is more dangerous in highsec(because local is of no help). Time to add some risk to the 0.0, to balance things out. if you fit a tank, then no catalyst poses a threat to your hulk. Many don't do this however. However all hulks in 0.0 require tanks if only to suck up the damage from belt rats. All solo hulks do this. Thus, belt rats in 0.0 alone pose a greater threat to miners then suicide gankers do. Funny how 0.0 rats pose a greater threat on 0.0 hulks than any 0.0 player does. Haha you misread. 0.0 rats pose a greater threat on 0.0 hulks then any highsec ganker poses to any highsec miner. That's not an empty claim, that is empirically verifiable fact. It simply goes without saying that any 0.0 player aggresses a 0.0 miner, the miner is dead.
Tell me, how to aggress a 0.0 hulk. Thanks to local, you cannot.
Only realistic option is awox, but this would be more common problem, if eve didn't have full API, public killboard and employment history. 0.0 carebears get everything they want. |
ps3ud0nym
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:07:00 -
[144] - Quote
The funniest thing about this post is that those are changes that Goons and the nul sec alliance have been trying to push for quite some time for the most part.
That being said, there is a MAJOR difference between safety in high-sec and safety in 0.0. In 0.0 it is safe because the players MAKE it safe where in high-sec it is safe due to no effort or organization on the part of people who live there. It is entirely mechanics based.
What you appear to want is no safety unless it is created by game mechanics. You want mechanics to trump organization and effort. If you want to be safe, get people together and MAKE it safe. All those nul sec organizations started as small corps in empire and the ones you ***** about the most have had to work far harder than most corps. The time that Dreddit, the founding corp of TEST, has spent where they WEREN'T in a war dec can be measured in days. That is from the very first day of their founding. We aren't talking one war here. We are talking multiple wars at all times, well before they ever made the jump into nul sec.
Alliances and corps in 0.0 have to work for everything they got and they have to work constantly to keep it. In contrast, the people of Empire have to do absolutely nothing to benefit from the safety offered in high-sec. It isn't just risk/reward, it is also effort/reward. If safety is your reward, then you had better get off your ass and do something, you shouldn't get something for nothing.
So ya, nerf high-sec. There should be no place in this game where you get something for nothing. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3813
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:14:00 -
[145] - Quote
basically this is highsec mining scum bleeting about how since miners in 0.0 are about eleven billion times smarter than they are c/d? |
TotalCareBear
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:20:00 -
[146] - Quote
ps3ud0nym wrote:The funniest thing about this post is that those are changes that Goons and the nul sec alliance have been trying to push for quite some time for the most part.
That being said, there is a MAJOR difference between safety in high-sec and safety in 0.0. In 0.0 it is safe because the players MAKE it safe where in high-sec it is safe due to no effort or organization on the part of people who live there. It is entirely mechanics based.
What you appear to want is no safety unless it is created by game mechanics. You want mechanics to trump organization and effort. If you want to be safe, get people together and MAKE it safe. All those nul sec organizations started as small corps in empire and the ones you ***** about the most have had to work far harder than most corps. The time that Dreddit, the founding corp of TEST, has spent where they WEREN'T in a war dec can be measured in days. That is from the very first day of their founding. We aren't talking one war here. We are talking multiple wars at all times, well before they ever made the jump into nul sec.
Alliances and corps in 0.0 have to work for everything they got and they have to work constantly to keep it. In contrast, the people of Empire have to do absolutely nothing to benefit from the safety offered in high-sec. It isn't just risk/reward, it is also effort/reward. If safety is your reward, then you had better get off your ass and do something, you shouldn't get something for nothing.
So ya, nerf high-sec. There should be no place in this game where you get something for nothing.
How many times, do I have to reply to these...
Local requires no collective effort whatsoever. Really, this keeps repeating... What part of "Someone in local, Warp to SS/POS/Station" is hard, what part of it requires collective effort? "Collective intel or gangs" have really minor effect on alliance players, as local still is the best line of defense vs being ganked when carebearing in 0.0.
And game mechanic changes have favored 0.0 alliances. You can't possibly argue against changes putting them at disfavor, given that they have had plenty of boosts. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1387
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:20:00 -
[147] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. Players and collective effort are what made it safe, not game mechanics. Tell me more about the collective effort of watching local channel. edit: if you removed local, you would actually have to have collective effort - having intel, having semi-pve-pvp fit, having backup ready in station and what not - all of this would require teamwork, rather "oh, someone in local, within 15 seconds I have warped to pos/ss/station." Removing local will effectively diminish intel channels, at least to the extent that they will no longer be an accurate form of 'intel'. It requires a massive amount of organization and work to establish a home region with logistics (POSes, JB network, etc.) to make it 'safe'.
Aside from moon goos, a relatively safe space with high rewards are an incentive for alliances to invade and take other people's space. You're talking about a major full blown nerf to this incentive without any balancing factor. People go to null space to pvp, yes, but for people to go and live in nullsec, there has to be a significant amount of reward, in this case, a safe(r) place to go to and make isk. Without local, or a proper intel source, there would be far far less people out in space doing non-pvp stuff in nullsec, thus, far less people to blow up and less motivation to take over someone else's space and in the end, less motivation for larger scale conflict in nullsec in whole. Don't like spaceships sandbox? then this is not the game for you. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
baltec1
1592
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:25:00 -
[148] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:
How many times, do I have to reply to these...
Local requires no collective effort whatsoever. Really, this keeps repeating... What part of "Someone in local, Warp to SS/POS/Station" is hard, what part of it requires collective effort? "Collective intel or gangs" have really minor effect on alliance players, as local still is the best line of defense vs being ganked when carebearing in 0.0.
And game mechanic changes have favored 0.0 alliances. You can't possibly argue against changes putting them at disfavor, given that they have had plenty of boosts.
Yet I still kill people trying to ship goods and mine in 0.0 |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1387
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:28:00 -
[149] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:
How many times, do I have to reply to these...
Local requires no collective effort whatsoever. Really, this keeps repeating... What part of "Someone in local, Warp to SS/POS/Station" is hard, what part of it requires collective effort? "Collective intel or gangs" have really minor effect on alliance players, as local still is the best line of defense vs being ganked when carebearing in 0.0.
And game mechanic changes have favored 0.0 alliances. You can't possibly argue against changes putting them at disfavor, given that they have had plenty of boosts.
Yet I still kill people trying to ship goods and mine in 0.0 I think I've killed a bunch of ratting nightmares and tengus a while back and I'm pretty sure they have their own 'intel channels' as well. Just sayin. Don't like spaceships sandbox? then this is not the game for you. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
baltec1
1593
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:32:00 -
[150] - Quote
TotalCareBear wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:TotalCareBear wrote:Someone, who smackstalks highsec players, yet wants the "sandbox" to be sized to their needs and doing that while game mechanics prevent risk in 0.0. Players and collective effort are what made it safe, not game mechanics. Tell me more about the collective effort of watching local channel. edit: if you removed local, you would actually have to have collective effort - having intel, having semi-pve-pvp fit, having backup ready in station and what not - all of this would require teamwork, rather "oh, someone in local, within 15 seconds I have warped to pos/ss/station."
Or if you are like me you dock up and grab a combat ship to deal with the enemy. Afterall if you dock up every time something pops up then you will not be keeping that space for long. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |