Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3348
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:00:31 -
[301] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp?
If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:13:22 -
[302] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Markus Reese wrote:You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp? If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant.
Its right up there with the idea that if you take away Hi-sec all of a sudden everyone there is going to want to hang out in null. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:14:53 -
[303] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6061491#post6061491
My coalition could reinforce a timer in one hour and fifteen minutes in hisec, thats 25 people in Talos's, to kill one would take 3 hours and 45 minutes in total.
Are hisec mercs really that weak that they cannot do that.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14486
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:17:49 -
[304] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:admiral root wrote:Markus Reese wrote:You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp? If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant. Its right up there with the idea that if you take away Hi-sec all of a sudden everyone there is going to want to hang out in null.
Another lie created by carebears. Because no one really thinks that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
633
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:19:28 -
[305] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No, you won't. You'll sit in your invincible structure and NOT fight, that's what you gutless toads want it for in the first place.
Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station? Difference is that in a citadel, there are station guns you can control vs playing LoL?
If the toads are gutless, then why are you guys not willing to put up the effort to tear it down? If that is too much work, then why do you even care to take the HS one down when there are low and nullsec?
Me thinks the gutless ones are the ones thinking they are overtanked for highsec since they are more concerned about highsec than heading out into low or null.
Station and NPC corp with station tank is much cheaper and easier than establishing and setting up a Citadel while at the same time actually being vulnerable.
That is my point of view. Range, firepower and some logi, all the dps of some no activity citadel is nothing. If there is activity, it is just they don't want to lose ships. How dare a citadel which costs (Insert how many billions here) to get operational be able to take out 1/10th of that if under attack.
Me think Killboard Epeen is what is the real issue. The usual talk, people want to take out other highsec without any losses. If a chance gonna lose, (aside from concord) it is run and hide time. Bring a force of equal firepower and investment into the Citadel siege and they lose 100% of a citadel, you lose a percentage of your fleet.
Seems balanced?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:23:16 -
[306] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: Why? What is wrong with isk tanking?
It breaks the game. Seriously, this is a big no duh here, so asking the question in the first place just makes you look incomparably stupid. Quote:Why does a defender have to play the attackers game?
Because you aren't the one who took the initiative. Duh. Basic tactics, older than the language we're typing in. Don't like it? Stop making the deliberate choice to be the prey animal in the game then. Unlike real life, you can just decide to start doing it right and stop being someone else's food. Quote:You know what, if carebears have better defences, they will actually fight.
No, you won't. You'll sit in your invincible structure and NOT fight, that's what you gutless toads want it for in the first place.
When I watch the solo pvp'rs going through Null many a time I see the elite nullbear hugging the station and then playing station games because sadly, the majority in Null only know pvp when they out blob the other side.
Its fun watching a solo pvp'r cause many to station up and hide. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14486
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:25:29 -
[307] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?
Yes. Those aren't in space assets.
Once again, duh.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
633
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:28:25 -
[308] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:
When I watch the solo pvp'rs going through Null many a time I see the elite nullbear hugging the station and then playing station games because sadly, the majority in Null only know pvp when they out blob the other side.
Its fun watching a solo pvp'r cause many to station up and hide.
That is why I like exploration. Eve is very much a predator/prey relationship. I have just as much fun avoiding the fight as I do fighting, possibly more in eve.
I am one ship evading 20 in a system, they are trolling me. So one ship... is keeping 20 from doing something else? I call that a win on my end.
Citadels? Circle the wagons, hold the fort.
Sounds like a good time for both parties. Combat DPS can attack their way, and highsec peeps can defend their way. Two playstyles meeting square.
If we really break down the situation, what is the difference in the combat. Have a planned attack fleet, you shoot and get shot. Difference is, attacking a citadel is all or nothing vs ship vs ship where you can probably get some kills.
What I want is really to see the investment required to citadels. That is the balance point. If it takes 50 people say 5 hours total to tear it down, then it should take at minimum 250 play hours to get what is needed to set one up before operational expenses. If nobody is at the helm, no losses. If the full force behind that man hours is at the helm ore more, than advantage to citadel.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:58:08 -
[309] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?
Yes. Those aren't in space assets. Once again, duh.
So you are mad that highsec players are going to risking and using vulnerable assets vs invulnerable npc shields?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3351
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:05:07 -
[310] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?
Yes. Those aren't in space assets. Once again, duh. So you are mad that highsec players are going to risking and using vulnerable assets vs invulnerable npc shields?
Kaarous, you mad, bro?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14489
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:29:59 -
[311] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?
Yes. Those aren't in space assets. Once again, duh. So you are mad that highsec players are going to be risking and using vulnerable assets vs invulnerable npc shields?
Your desperate attempt at a strawman aside, you know full well that is not what I meant.
What I meant is that your attempt to compare them is a category error. NPC corps and stations have the benefits that they do because they themselves are not assets. Meanwhile, you want a very literal asset to be all but immune to attack, and expect CCP to grant this ever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16684
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:42:52 -
[312] - Quote
Those 25 Taloses would be dust in less than a minute.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:48:42 -
[313] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Your desperate attempt at a strawman aside, you know full well that is not what I meant.
What I meant is that your attempt to compare them is a category error. NPC corps and stations have the benefits that they do because they themselves are not assets. Meanwhile, you want a very literal asset to be all but immune to attack, and expect CCP to grant this ever.
Truthfully, I have no idea what you mean by strawman. Guess I can look it up though.
Maybe I am a simple point of view but here is what I see.
We have stations which players can do business and industry from without issue and hop betwen no risk via instawarps and jump clones. Stations are indestructible.
Then we have NPC corps which you cannot war dec.
So free incincibility, and if person is like me who does any exploration, wont care about any attempt at highsec pvp. At best you can catch newbs.
Citadels though are destroyable, cost in game assets and can be war decced.
Who cares how strong they are on top tier. You have players being players and not npc actors. I have never said immune. I said and will say again, on par. Result of going to war to take down a citadel should be exactly the same if executed right as if you faced off against same asset value in ships. Why should, number at random, 10b of structure be able to be contested by 1b of ships?
Anybody who sets up a citadel has now put eggs in one basket. Is either attackers back off, or lose it all. There is no partial loss to decide to dock up.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:51:11 -
[314] - Quote
That one question is a serious one. I really would like a serious answer.
What is the issue if it takes parity of asset value to take a reasonable challenge to a citadel?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14493
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:56:12 -
[315] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: We have stations which players can do business and industry from without issue and hop betwen no risk via instawarps and jump clones. Stations are indestructible.
Then we have NPC corps which you cannot war dec.
I'll put this as simply as I can.
Those things are that way solely because someone cannot own them. Player assets are always to be destructible, and more than in just theory at that.
Quote: Why should, number at random, 10b of structure be able to be contested by 1b of ships?
Because you don't get isk tanking.
Full stop.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14493
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 20:57:32 -
[316] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: What is the issue if it takes parity of asset value to take a reasonable challenge to a citadel?
You mean to say, "why is it bad to 100% cut out smaller groups from PvP content, and to say "screw you" to new players, just so a few bloated carebears don't have to bother defending themselves?"
Hopefully that's self explanatory.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:01:03 -
[317] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: What is the issue if it takes parity of asset value to take a reasonable challenge to a citadel?
You mean to say, "why is it bad to 100% cut out smaller groups from PvP content, and to say "screw you" to new players, just so a few bloated carebears don't have to bother defending themselves?" Hopefully that's self explanatory.
Doesnt explain anything. I dont see how it exludes small peeps. Ships have to travel, not everybody will be XL . All the new player stuff is still active. How are rookies screwed. Bloated highsec peeps already dont have to defend themselves, and its free.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14493
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:02:26 -
[318] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: I dont see how it exludes small peeps.
...what? Are you serious?
You don't see how forcing there to be a disproportionately larger fleet than normal to even attack a structure in highsec excludes smaller groups?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3352
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:05:53 -
[319] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: I dont see how it exludes small peeps.
...what? Are you serious? You don't see how forcing there to be a disproportionately larger fleet than normal to even attack a structure in highsec excludes smaller groups?
$5 says he can't see beyond his own desire to have one of these doohickeys and it be impervious to mean people.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14493
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:11:31 -
[320] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: I dont see how it exludes small peeps.
...what? Are you serious? You don't see how forcing there to be a disproportionately larger fleet than normal to even attack a structure in highsec excludes smaller groups? $5 says he can't see beyond his own desire to have one of these doohickeys and it be impervious to mean people.
No bet, I don't give money away. Well, yes I do, because I'm an honest isk doubler, but not real money.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:16:46 -
[321] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: I dont see how it exludes small peeps.
...what? Are you serious? You don't see how forcing there to be a disproportionately larger fleet than normal to even attack a structure in highsec excludes smaller groups? $5 says he can't see beyond his own desire to have one of these doohickeys and it be impervious to mean people.
You mean myself or Kaarous?
There are massive piles of things in eve that are not capable of being done by newbs. Why is highsec war any different? Somebody is a ten year economic veteran in highsec with a massive industrial juggernaut corp? Then hell yes, it should take the same to disrupt them. A tril isk set aside for fortress or same for ships. One they will actually have interest in investing their isk to sitadels tank. Other, they just spend time on alts doing the same thing without war dec but now still have a tril in their wallet.
I doubt many newbs would cry and quit if you told them that they have no chance taking on higher end rich and elite players without being the same.
I dont care how tough they are. Just as long as is investment parity of attackers to defenders. Make em half the HP but half their cost. Now instead of one, you have two for teardown meaning fighting same time and losing just as much in total.
Edit: Is called endgame. Incentive to form larger pvp groups that might then actually head out to low and null. It just now means that a corp of six will have a more difficult time camping a large highsec alliance. Guess small and newbs will be limited to other small and newb.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3354
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:19:51 -
[322] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:You mean myself or Kaarous?
Of course I didn't mean Kaarous - of the two of you, he's the one talking sense whereas you seem to be jibber jabbering about things that you don't understand.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:24:57 -
[323] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Markus Reese wrote:You mean myself or Kaarous? Of course I didn't mean Kaarous - of the two of you, he's the one talking sense whereas you seem to be jibber jabbering about things that you don't understand.
Then correct me. It is really basic. I ask why it shouldnt take 10 bil isk of fleet to take out 10b of defence? Seriously. Because newbs and small fleet of cruisers might be left out? We need maximum number of locks on a target so that fleet of fifty can take on two thousand. Whaa whaaa. Small alliance of t1 fit ships cannot counter PL. I call foul!!!!
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3355
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:27:49 -
[324] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:admiral root wrote:Markus Reese wrote:You mean myself or Kaarous? Of course I didn't mean Kaarous - of the two of you, he's the one talking sense whereas you seem to be jibber jabbering about things that you don't understand. Then correct me. It is really basic. I ask why it shouldnt take 10 bil isk of fleet to take out 10b of defence? Seriously. Because newbs and small fleet of cruisers might be left out? We need maximum number of locks on a target so that fleet of fifty can take on two thousand. Whaa whaaa. Small alliance of t1 fit ships cannot counter PL. I call foul!!!!
Because isk tanking isn't how Eve works.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14494
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:29:56 -
[325] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: There are massive piles of things in eve that are not capable of being done by newbs. Why is highsec war any different? Somebody is a ten year economic veteran in highsec with a massive industrial juggernaut corp? Then hell yes, it should take the same to disrupt them.
See this? He's admitting that he thinks PvP, the single strongest retention driver, should be totally out of reach of new players and small groups.
Basically, he wants to kill this game.
I wonder how many times it will have to be repeated before he understands that isk tanking breaks the game.
Quote: Just as long as is investment parity of attackers to defenders.
No.
You do not get "parity" or "fairness" or anything of that sort of bullshit. This is a sandbox game. If there is a fair fight anywhere in this universe, it's because someone ****** up.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16686
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:42:12 -
[326] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:admiral root wrote:Markus Reese wrote:You mean myself or Kaarous? Of course I didn't mean Kaarous - of the two of you, he's the one talking sense whereas you seem to be jibber jabbering about things that you don't understand. Then correct me. It is really basic. I ask why it shouldnt take 10 bil isk of fleet to take out 10b of defence? Seriously. Because newbs and small fleet of cruisers might be left out? We need maximum number of locks on a target so that fleet of fifty can take on two thousand. Whaa whaaa. Small alliance of t1 fit ships cannot counter PL. I call foul!!!!
Because tank based upon isk is one of the worst ways to balance the game.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 00:07:53 -
[327] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: There are massive piles of things in eve that are not capable of being done by newbs. Why is highsec war any different? Somebody is a ten year economic veteran in highsec with a massive industrial juggernaut corp? Then hell yes, it should take the same to disrupt them.
See this? He's admitting that he thinks PvP, the single strongest retention driver, should be totally out of reach of new players and small groups.
Completely bass ackwards there.
I am saying this takes something that already exists FREE in highsec and makes it now a resource consumer. The main difference is it makes a station camp now have guns. New players still want pvp, but now it is more pvp. There are the other sizes for that siege by lower income players capable for combat as well. I said it takes resource, not SP to counter. There is absolutely zero reason why new players cannot assist veterans in these sieges the exact same way any other subcap pilot would.
The core of every argument vs the Xlarge is that they cannot be taken down without needing some stupid capitals. What part of capital siege is pvp for a new player? If anything, having them in highsec makes it more new player pvp friendly since now they actually might be able to get into a fleet to be part of large structure if they find a corp open minded enough to include pilots who don't mind probable death, running electronics supports and the like. All roles that currently exist and the players tell them to F-off.
From day one of eve, I have pushed for changing combat mechanics away from blob and alpha combat for the specific reason of granting more value on non dps roles which are ideally suited for low SP players. But there is this stubborn, misguided ideology that DPS is all that matters. Maybe it does, and that is wrong. Meta play is all fine and dandy, but tactics and organization should be a deciding factor in a fight in addition to just numbers. Make there be vital, but low SP fillable roles. Want to siege an XL with a small group and new players?
Have em in sniper dessies or something. They will die just as easily as if they went against a fleet of the same value as that structure. Do the turrets not need players controlling them? If the structure is put up by a single rich guy, all the better. Means he cannot hurt you and time for a nubbie swarm to tear it down. Fantastic.
I see it as a fantastic new player tool. I just don't see why you are so insistent that anything highsec must never require a fleet. Hence my examples. a small group of new players isn't going to be able to do anything to any other large group, so why should a mega isk corp be different. Fight power with power. New players are weak, so absolutely if something is strong, that is too bad.
Incursions Drifters Low/null NPCs Most any non organized PvP Market Trading Missions Exploration
Every single one is inaccessible to a new player without working with veteran corps. There is that entry for the small groups, but none of it can compete with the big dogs. Why should structure ownership and war decs be different? I have repeatedly trained and worked with larger industry/highsec corps on low SP counter pvp successfully. End of day, a small fish in a big pond is a small fish.
Quote: Just as long as is investment parity of attackers to defenders.
No.
You do not get "parity" or "fairness" or anything of that sort of bullshit. This is a sandbox game. If there is a fair fight anywhere in this universe, it's because someone ****** up.[/quote]
You are damned right, it is a sandbox game so if you want to take out a big expensive structure, nut up or shut up. That player is bigger has more isk than you. So you better get bigger than him if you want to take him out. The parity is just a level for balance. If that structure is bigger and stronger than you, then why the hell should something tiny, weak and cheap be all that is needed to take it out.
Your counter proves my point in it's entirety.
So what if it is a structure. That thing is bigger and more powerful than you? Then die. That is eve. Plain and simple. Yet a number of people here are complaining they will "need people and big ships" too take it out. Freaking good. If you are not big enough or strong enough to, there is a belt with a few T1 barges mining to go after instead.
I really don't get the arguement, I really do not. Myself and others have said so what if one part of it is too tough for small peeps. THERE ALWAYS IS! You say isk tanking isn't valid? Why not. Is a sandbox game. If said player has more isk than you, then he is better than you (or sold a bunch of plex?) so get off high horse and take the bruised ego. Or get together, toughen yourself up and give em a black eye. If somebody plexes their Citadel or is just seriously rich over years, the citadels are going to be a great way for them to lose a whole pile of isk fast.
Citadels=dickstar pos=station docked. This is better and more inclusive to the entire player base on a whole no matter how strong they are, unless they can alpha a bs right off the field, cause that is too much.
Once more I have presented a counter as to how they are great because they are tough
Your arguements consist of that just cause a player is better than you in a different way, that way of play should not be legitimate either. All I have seen so far is complaint about being blueballed because frigates cannot easily take out a titan. These at least can give the new player one more thing to shoot for and get a taste of to help them step up to big nullsec alliance.
So if the war dec discussion is going to continue, best to start with logical and supported statements.
Start with your definition if isk tanking? Why is it bad? Why should a better and financially powerful character not be allowed?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 01:35:37 -
[328] - Quote
Adding a couple of pics.
if I can get full fleets of peeps in highsec to take down CCP upgraded supercaps, then assuredly people determined to be big dogs can find enough to siege a structure. If you want it, just go and do it. Bust some balls. I have been there, done that, now waiting for the next thing that gets me wanting to run an alliance again. If I can get 255 people to fleet up in fifteen minutes to do this... All highsec.
http://i.imgur.com/Up37EKY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hHmiywH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/29CemyI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/BUjphK0.jpg
No screenies, but I turned an alliance of newbs, miners and mission runners in one day into a force that could turn back a wardec corp. We didn't get kills, that wasn't our intention. The war stopped, we didn't lose ships after training, total victory in our opinion. I got booted from the corp though for telling the big guys they were idiot for focusing on damage though with a bunch of people that had minimal dps support skills.
Or am I just over-estimating new player potential. Oh well.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14506
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 01:49:21 -
[329] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote: I am saying this takes something that already exists FREE in highsec and makes it now a resource consumer.
No, you are suggesting that protections previously only available to non player groups be applied to player assets.
Quote: Your counter proves my point in it's entirety.
No, it proves that you can't read.
I said that you will never be allowed to have isk tanking, to force someone else to field an inordinate amount of ships and people to kill something just because it's expensive. Particularly since your sole argument in favor of totally destroying game balance is some twisted sense of fairness.
I was mocking you. I still am.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
635
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 02:23:54 -
[330] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Markus Reese wrote: I am saying this takes something that already exists FREE in highsec and makes it now a resource consumer.
No, you are suggesting that protections previously only available to non player groups be applied to player assets.
How are the assets protected? That is one part I do kinda fanagle with but agree with CCPs stance. As opposed to a pos, everything in the citadel still stays nice and safe on it's destruction. Not ideal, but it was the right call due to the sov blocks.
Quote:
No, it proves that you can't read.
I said that you will never be allowed to have isk tanking, to force someone else to field an inordinate amount of ships and people to kill something just because it's expensive. Particularly since your sole argument in favor of totally destroying game balance is some twisted sense of fairness.
It isn't "fairness" It is just mechanics. That is how eve works. If I have a bunch of ships, you need more to take me out. Instead of a bunch of ships, it is just one big structure. Logic, not fairness. Maybe I cannot interperate, or maybe you cannot explain. It is no matter. I really just want an answer of why it is wrong that somebody who put a bunch of time into the game cannot get a big, shiny and destroyable structure?
It is destroyable.
Not being able to get peeps to destroy it is an excuse.
It will take more than isk, they will need the people to operate it else will be an easy. albiet a longer, grind.
No game balance will be destroyed, at least none that has been actually explained. To this point, it still only comes down to that people are complaining it will be too hard to take down players who until now have been snuggled in a station. How is a difficult target worse than not having it in the first place?
Perhaps I am missing some mechanic, but why not try going into depth. I expressed my view to the best of my abilities and why I think it is fair. How it takes station locked players and isk and makes it into a targetable and destroyable content.
You say it breaks balance and the only reasoning is that "it excludes new players" and is "isk tanking" is the counter. There is no substance to it. I love info. My job in a nutshell is solving problems and improving performance without disrupting original function. That is what I have been trying to do with this debate.
Fill me in, get me some properly contextualized counterpoints. Inform me to what I am missing and why the debate.
I do sincerely want to know. What exists now that will no longer exist when these structures come out into highsec. What are we actually going to be losing? How is addition without loss bad?
Quote: I was mocking you. I still am.
Mock away. I stand by my reasoning. Sarcasm, trolling, and mocking. None of it bothers me. I know my stance, I follow my stance and if there is something I find fault with, be it an honest or false statement, I will approach it the same. I either learn something, the other person learns something, or they are ignorant.
What happens their end, does not matter. All that matters is at the end of it, my stance is more solid, or improved. From mult-million dollar products to a debate on a video game forums. I stand firm and will not compromise my ethics. I can hold my head high and proud because I know that even on a little forum debate, that it could not be better
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |