Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
21346
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:03:51 -
[691] - Quote
@ Lucas and Ima
Get a room
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2466
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:04:04 -
[692] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand? Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
402
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:10:31 -
[693] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Marsha Mallow
1655
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:15:17 -
[694] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Besides, I'm also discussing the topic at hand. No, you're not. Shut the **** up Lucas. At least Dinsdale is funny. #unleashthebeast #freedinsdale
If Code is supporting botters either accidentally or deliberately, we could argue you are too. You're part of a scrub empire that funds its SRP from renters. Don't even try to pretend some of those renter corps aren't overflowing with bots, or that anyone is unaware of it. That dirty bot ISK flows through pretty much every nullsec alliance wallet to every blobmoney in null with an SRP policy, making everyone involved participants. You're a filthy botlord Lucas, and everyone knows it.
DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
222
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:21:56 -
[695] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast.
Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it.
But anyhow, let's stick to the topic here - awoxx changes, not the moral worth of CODE. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
21348
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:23:52 -
[696] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
222
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:25:15 -
[697] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed.
Confirming that I have never suicide ganked, scammed, or awoxxed anyone while playing. I suppose Eve is most certainly doomed unless it has more of those activities. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6591
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:26:28 -
[698] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
But anyhow, let's stick to the topic here - awoxx changes, not the moral worth of CODE.
To be honest, until Kaarous logs back on with his threats to quit and various other amusing postings, I prefer the CODE meltdown over the awoxing drama.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:27:15 -
[699] - Quote
Anthar Peva wrote:Persifonne wrote:When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. Well, once this change is in, it is that day, is it not? Although you forgot kill rights. Once that change is in, awoxing will now be pure thievery. (and S.E. to get them to duel you, but that's terrible) Veers Belvar wrote:Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? How does running missions for no reason other than getting isk to upgrade your missions ship benefit the game? (not referring to all mission runners, but a lot do this afaik)
They are in a nice blingy ship out there taking the risk that you can awox, gank, or think of any other way to blow up their ship, the change would only mean you now take the risk of losing your ship during the awox.
We have established that the self proclaimed content creating awoxxers do not want to lose their ship.
And its really really bad for Eve when the self proclaimed content creating awwoxers are risk averse. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
21350
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:29:03 -
[700] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed. Confirming that I have never suicide ganked, scammed, or awoxxed anyone while playing. While I have suicide ganked, on a previous character, in the past , I've never scammed or awoxxed people either. I don't claim to be above reproach, always right, or an expert on things I know little of, unlike yourself.
Quote:I suppose Eve is most certainly doomed unless it has more of those activities. That's not what I meant and you know it.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
423
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:32:07 -
[701] - Quote
Veers, can I direct you to my other thread for a more formal discussion, away from the GD rabble?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5168350#post5168350
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:34:27 -
[702] - Quote
And since someone brought up isk.......
CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity.
So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions.
I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
129
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:35:33 -
[703] - Quote
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox.
More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore.
I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it.
Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds.
If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them.
So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out.
I have no special love for awoxing - although it has produced some memorable player-driven stories - but it is an interesting mechanic which provides risk in all-too-safe highsec. Sandbox means we the players have the tools to create content and experiences beyond those scripted by CCP. Removing such a tool, for a purpose that everyone here seems to acknowledge is unlikely to result in many more players sticking around is wrong. CCP should be adding more tools like awoxing to allow us to build and destroy things in new and interesting ways.
But my primary objection is that at its heart, Sandbox means the actions of all of us - the players - influence each other. As Mike Azariah just seems to be realizing, that means practically everything we do, from mining to mission running to market trading to direct combat is PvP. My ore devalues your ore. My ISK devalues your ISK. Therefore, this additional reduction of risk in highsec is creating even further imbalance in the risk vs. reward, making other security spaces other than highsec even less competitive place to live.
Year after year highsec gets safer and safer, and we are now at the point where it is impossible to die unless you do something incredibly stupid. The economy is showing the stress of this problem, and the player-base is moving back , or never leaving highsec because it is too lucrative for the miniscule level of risk left. Anything that further reduces the risk in highsec is detrimental for the game.
More practically though, this nerf - no not nerf - complete removal of a time-honoured mechanic will not help new players. No new player stayed out of a corp because of awoxing (maybe because of wardecs but those are still there), so really this change only benefits highsec corps by reducing their risk. Why do highsec corps need yet another reduction in risk?
Eve is about conflict. Eve is not about creating a space utopia where no-one ever dies.
We should not remove game mechanics that drive conflict. |
Anslo
Scope Works
20427
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:36:23 -
[704] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:And since someone brought up isk.......
CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity.
So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions.
I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden. Sorry guys. I think I broke this dude like two pages ago. Woops.
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:40:00 -
[705] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Syn Shi wrote:And since someone brought up isk.......
CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity.
So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions.
I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden. Sorry guys. I think I broke this dude like two pages ago. Woops.
CCP Falcon - IGÇÖd like to add the graphs into the minutes. These graphs are hard t o quantify into words. CCP Recurve - We can do some. In the net inflow and sinks and faucets the biggest drop was Odyssey with the SisterGÇÖs ships coming in. CCP Greyscale - Not everyone realizes that LP is a massive ISK sink.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
6331
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:41:37 -
[706] - Quote
mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread,
given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online)
is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step?
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:42:08 -
[707] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox.
More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore.
I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it.
Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds.
If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them.
So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out.
I have no special love for awoxing - although it has produced some memorable player-driven stories - but it is an interesting mechanic which provides risk in all-too-safe highsec. Sandbox means we the players have the tools to create content and experiences beyond those scripted by CCP. Removing such a tool, for a purpose that everyone here seems to acknowledge is unlikely to result in many more players sticking around is wrong. CCP should be adding more tools like awoxing to allow us to build and destroy things in new and interesting ways. But my primary objection is that at its heart, Sandbox means the actions of all of us - the players - influence each other. As Mike Azariah just seems to be realizing, that means practically everything we do, from mining to mission running to market trading to direct combat is PvP. My ore devalues your ore. My ISK devalues your ISK. Therefore, this additional reduction of risk in highsec is creating even further imbalance in the risk vs. reward, making other security spaces other than highsec even less competitive place to live. Year after year highsec gets safer and safer, and we are now at the point where it is impossible to die unless you do something incredibly stupid. The economy is showing the stress of this problem, and the player-base is moving back , or never leaving highsec because it is too lucrative for the miniscule level of risk left. Anything that further reduces the risk in highsec is detrimental for the game. More practically though, this nerf - no not nerf - complete removal of a time-honoured mechanic will not help new players. No new player stayed out of a corp because of awoxing (maybe because of wardecs but those are still there), so really this change only benefits highsec corps by reducing their risk. Why do highsec corps need yet another reduction in risk? Eve is about conflict. Eve is not about creating a space utopia where no-one ever dies. We should not remove game mechanics that drive conflict.
Its not being removed. You will just have to deal with concord now.
Its your choice to remove the activity from your play list.
|
Carmen Electra
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
11832
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:43:30 -
[708] - Quote
From some really skimmy skimming I'm gathering that:
TL;DR awoxers mad that their "content creation tools" (lol) are being removed. Is that what this thread is about? Did I miss anything?
Bacon makes us stronger
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2961
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:50:44 -
[709] - Quote
CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed?
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team.
Improve the forums, support this idea:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:50:46 -
[710] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:From some really skimmy skimming I'm gathering that:
TL;DR awoxers mad that their "content creation tools" (lol) are being removed. Is that what this thread is about? Did I miss anything?
Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship.
The only ones choosing to remove awox are the ones carrying out the awox. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
21351
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:55:24 -
[711] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed.
"Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2467
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:02:21 -
[712] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Syn Shi wrote:Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed. So you're saying:
Suicide Gank - Ship Loss = Awox
Interesting......interesting.....But what if we assume that the target is a new player corp in hisec, can we replace some equivalent expressions?
Suicide Gank - Risk = Awox
Fascinating stuff! |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4387
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:03:02 -
[713] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:If Code is supporting botters either accidentally or deliberately, we could argue you are too. You're part of a scrub empire that funds its SRP from renters. Don't even try to pretend some of those renter corps aren't overflowing with bots, or that anyone is unaware of it. That dirty bot ISK flows through pretty much every nullsec alliance wallet to every blobmoney in null with an SRP policy, making everyone involved participants. You're a filthy botlord Lucas, and everyone knows it. You can argue what you want, I'm not the one sitting around claiming to be trying to rid highsec of bot aspirant behaviour while attacking all miners that display behaviour that is not bot aspirant. One day when I start making grandiose claims of performing the exact opposite of my actions, then you can criticise me in the same way and I might take it on board.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:05:34 -
[714] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity. EVE is real! |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:33 -
[715] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:We should not remove game mechanics that drive conflict. There is no "we". You have no influence on this decision.
CCP wants to drive people into lo/null, so more changes will come, to lure people there. In short: they make people like codies obsolete, who claim to have a similar target.
So why that noise? Maybe its about the awox, maybe someone begins to see that cheap griefing gets reduced.
The rumor about player loss about this changes are quite ... lets say funny. Elite and SC show there is highdemand for SpaceSim and EvE can and might profit from that fact to. That brings changes for all players and some might not like them. Still EvE will not turn into WoW, even when highsec gets safer. What might miners get into other areas? Less ore to mine. No reason why CCP will do nothing about belt distributions and asteroid amount.
Forum Main
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2951
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:36 -
[716] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:From some really skimmy skimming I'm gathering that:
TL;DR awoxers mad that their "content creation tools" (lol) are being removed. Is that what this thread is about? Did I miss anything? No. You missed absolutely nothing.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Carmen Electra
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
11836
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:57 -
[717] - Quote
I don't know why y'all so mad about high sec rewards. I make ISK in high sec and then go welp shiny stuff in PVP in low and null.
Bacon makes us stronger
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:08:02 -
[718] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Syn Shi wrote:Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed. Offtopic ~ Would you care to purchase a bridge to live under? I'll even throw in a couple of goats to make sure you feel at home.
Awox...pretending to join a corp to shoot someone as used in the OP..and under the current rules with no consequence.
If you still join that corp and pretend to be nice how does having a consequence change this fact?
You still joined the corp to play nice just to shoot them....that doesn't change.
The only time it becomes suicide ganking is when they aren't part of your corp.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4388
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:08:46 -
[719] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread,
given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online)
is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step?
ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2468
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 22:09:51 -
[720] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast. Funny, any time someone criticizes code, you (code and your supporters) almost always accuse them of delusional rambling. That must be convenient, I suppose. Could you provide an example where that isn't the case, please? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |