Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
61
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
Drakonium wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Drakonium wrote:Do you even realize how angry and hateful you sound? Yes? I thought that was the point? I'm just wondering if you're one of those that griefs because people take pixels too seriously. It would seem odd and hypcoritical of you, considering that you're taking this game way too seriously yourself. Whenever people feel aggrieved and ask CCP for changes to game mechanics on the forums, they usually outnumber those who want to maintain the status quo. This is completely rational; when a person is dissatisfied, he will take up arms, but when he is content, he will remain complacent and indifferent. The claim of tears, by either side, is simply a crude straw man, used in lieu of a rational argument. In reality, it's just two groups fighting to get what they want. In this case, one group is fighting for the implementation of massive dampers on non-consensual pvp in high-sec, while the other is trying to hold on to as many "core" EVE principles as it can.
Neither group is objectively right. Maybe if the first group gets what it wants, and EVE goes through massive changes, the game would actually be better off, with an increased subscription count and higher player satisfaction. Or maybe the game will wither and die, for any number of reasons predicted by the opposite side (economy implodes, inability to compete with other pve-centric MMOs, etc). Either way, we won't know until it happens. However, it would be extremely hypocritical of you to demonize me simply for the act of subscribing to a different idology.
Everybody "cries" at some point. So the next time someone feels empowered because their side won a concession and starts spewing memes, it would be wise to remember what brought them to the forums in the first place. This goes for "griefer" and carebear alike.
So, what brought me to the forums? Certainly not the need to disparage anyone's play style. I'm simply here to make the argument that the removal of insurance won't diminish the grievances that people have with ganking; the amount of money is simply too small to be a significant factor. However, when this change fails to create its intended impact, it is likely to lead to further, more drastic changes. Changes that will no doubt have a much larger impact on the core concept of EVE Online. You know, the whole "you're not really safe anywhere" thing? I don't want this to happen, and I'm well within my rights to argue against it, preemptively or not.
PS: I don't grief anyone. I play within the confines of the rules set by CCP. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off Coalition of the Unfortunate
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
Homonoia said that it's a valid tactic... not that it was dignified and honourable action to go ganking ships that CCP saw fit not to give any tank what so ever. |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
Zindela wrote:Elyssa MacLeod wrote:
b.) "tl;dr : public cruxification of OP involving illegal RMT isk buy (if you read the whole thread)."
Interesting, I dont see any nails in my hands nor my feet, being that IM the "OP" in this case and IVE never been involved in RMT, nor do I seem to have even POSTED in that thread you linked.
Good try, sloppy execution.
"It was as much a slap in the face of the loop-hole abusers who are spamming teary-eyed threads every day to protest the agression mechanic change as was a reiteration of one of the core principles in Eve.
In short: OP fails at comprehension and by extension this thread is fail."
lol Im LIKING the GMs finally telling the qqing carebears to HTFU and Im still wrong? Man there are some DUMB mfs here or what?
I think you missed the point about the thread he linked... he wasn't insulting you at all. He was linking another thread that in his opinion had more GM win than what you posted.
ah crap, I apologize then, It was the "where the OP got crucified" thing that threw me.
GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Barakkus
1085
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
erm, how does that protect you from being suicide ganked.....
|
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Elyssa MacLeod wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:... The loophole that was plugged recently fixed a tactic that gave no warning AND had NO consequence. EVE doesn't do 'no consequences' (or close to it anyway). This tactic has plenty consequences, namely CONCORDdokken + standings/security hits. ... Oh, really? Does this stop them bio-massing alts and making more? Does this give us a way to find their main to seek revenge? Does this give a security hit to the main? No? Well then, there are no real consequences yet. Funny thing about that. If you put in a ticket and ask a GM about it, you get the funniest (moronic) reply ever (paraphrasing): If you think a character has been recycled, ticket it roflmao Sturmwolke wrote:[quote=Elyssa MacLeod]Post #12 Read Post #14. Btw, your age's showing, stop jumping up and down and yakking pointless threads please. The adults prefer something with more meat
ah, 43 isnt adult? dammit when do I get to grow up? GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Barakkus wrote:erm, how does that protect you from being suicide ganked.....
You suicide yourselves to deny the ganker the pleasure of doing it?
Sentient Blade wrote:Homonoia said that it's a valid tactic... not that it was dignified and honourable action to go ganking ships that CCP saw fit not to give any tank what so ever.
whats honor have to do with EVE?
P.S. Youre doing it wrong GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
288
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
Barakkus wrote:erm, how does that protect you from being suicide ganked.....
The issue in question are the tactic of using suicide Blackbirds to jam an Incursion fleets logistics ships.
ECCM or more logistics ships would keep the person they are trying to keep alive from dying by either preventing the logistics from being jammed in the first place... or by having more logistics ships than the Blackbird can jam.
To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Mrs Sooperdudespaceman
Loud On The Forums Silent In Game
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jack All'Trade wrote: Scarey people force me to post with an alt. Join my corp bro. |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 04:46:00 -
[39] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Niko Takahashi wrote:The whole insurance should be removed then we see how many of you are really hardcore. Suicide without consequences I dont count sec hit as anything worth of mentioning. When you can actually salvage and loot your own wreck after concord is done and get reimbursed for all the minerals is exactly what the cost of the BPC ? Man, all trolling aside, I can't remember the last time I insured an actual combat ship. It had to have been at least five years ago.
lol me too; it makes it so much more fun in a risk/reward manner GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |