Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Obsidian Blacke
Oberon Confederation
30
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 23:10:19 -
[181] - Quote
This is neither breaking, nor news. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15890
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 23:12:55 -
[182] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Disastrous how? You just repeat yourself that 'catering to the stupid' is going to kill eve. This video proves the world is full of stupid people, who don't read warnings. They'll still complain when their reality comes crashing down. If you don't want the complaints in the first place, you design to tolerate 'stupid' people. Now of course, this is not to say 'make eve simple', but it is to say that there should be a shallow end where stupid people can be themselves and have a good time.
EVE is not and should not ever be a game with a shallow end. It's a game for adults who should be expected to figure things out. /That idealistic egalitarian "make something everyone will enjoy" thing is as unrealistic in EVE as it is IRL, and CCP's pursuit of that since 2012 is the real shame of all of this.
Must every game be mushy hand holding "we don't think you are grown enough to enjoy a strict game" bull crap?
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 23:15:17 -
[183] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote: The only way to not get caught is to just not do courier contracts to citadels.
There is no other way to avoid this.
Great gameplay...
You are equating a small probability with absolute certainty, and ignoring all of the methods you have to manage the risk outside of not risking a collateral loss.
You are also ignoring the fact that citadels that are not yours have trust as part of their design, and that trust covers
materials of industrial jobs implanted jump clones various levels risks to assets stored docking rights
Never mind that as it becomes widely understood as an issue the cost for shipping to a citadel is going to rise, which in itself mitigates some of the risks if you do sufficient successful jobs between failures.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28299
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 23:26:52 -
[184] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Orin Solette wrote:"It's been around forever" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are. People choose to take courier contracts to citadels, they choose to ignore the warning that the destination may not be accessible, and then they whine on the forums about it. Given that there are already ways to not get caught by it, and that those who do get caught by it are warned beforehand about it, why shouldn't the owners of a citadel/outpost remain able to lock people out of it? Your choices have consequences here; especially foolish choices. One of the possible consequences of taking a courier contract to a player owned structure is that you might not be able to complete the contract. The only way to not get caught is to just not do courier contracts to citadels. There is no other way to avoid this. Great gameplay... Not really I pick up the occasional courier contract to citadels, I'm picky as to how much, for whom and to where though.
The 7P's are relevant here. Proper Planning and Practice Prevents **** Poor Performance
Mr Mieyli wrote:Disastrous how? You just repeat yourself that 'catering to the stupid' is going to kill eve. This video proves the world is full of stupid people, who don't read warnings. They'll still complain when their reality comes crashing down. If you don't want the complaints in the first place, you design to tolerate 'stupid' people. Now of course, this is not to say 'make eve simple', but it is to say that there should be a shallow end where stupid people can be themselves and have a good time. No matter how idiot proof you make something, there's always a bigger idiot just around the corner that will manage to break it.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8486
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 23:52:09 -
[185] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I am going to point out again that the usual take on risk-reward is actually backwards from most of the commentary. Risk is not some thing that is imposed by the game environment in EVE. Risk is something that is due to player actions. If a player blind jumps his super capital to a beacon and gets dropped nobody complains. Everyone realizes that the player was reckless and got what he deserved for being reckless.
This is true not just for super capitals, but for just about everything else. If you let somebody into your corp without checking out his background and building up some level of trust and he robs you blind. That is really on you. We all know that trust is very important in the game and that is can take a long time to build it. Similarly, as I have argued many times, if you anti-tank your freighter, put 6 billion ISK in cargo into it and undock and do not use even a scoutGǪyou are taking on lots of risk. Further, you are creating the large reward for the gankers. So the freighter pilot is creating the disparity in what most people think of as a risk vs. reward scenario. To turn around and blame the gankers or the gameGÇÖs mechanics is just daft. It is like kicking your dog when your car battery is dead.
To be clear, when somebody says, there is not enough risk for X players given the reward when both the risk and the reward are the result of player YGÇÖs actions. Player Y can reduce the reward and his risk by not taking that behavior that is risky for Y and rewarding the X players.
And this is true for contract scams. You are literally warned every time you accept a courier contract to anything other than an NPC station. You can avoid that risk with trivial ease. That a player takes on more risk than they are willing to tolerate is that playerGÇÖs problem. Not anyone elseGÇÖs problem especially CCP.
Advisory: long weekend coming and we'll see more posts like this.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
623
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 01:48:22 -
[186] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Then let the stupid whine and complain, but don't change the game to accommodate stupid.
Whines and complaints look bad from the outside. They have a real effect on people's perception of the game even if they've never played it. If these 'stupid people' had a place they could be stupid, they'd be able to play eve and contribute to CCP. Eve is so much more to me than just a pvp game, and more people playing has positive effects for everyone, except maybe to some people's profits.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Aurelius Oshidashi
Hard-line Syndicate Serrice Council.
26
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 03:46:31 -
[187] - Quote
If I were a hauler, I would keep a list of trusted citadels for deliveries. I would find out by contacting the corp owning it. If they scam me after all I would take revenge on them. If they are a powerful group their reputation would have been damaged at the least, but then I might have to take my loss.
Also like others say, if you're lazy, just only deliver to npc stations.
I agree with the comments on the first page that we shouldn't ask ccp to correct things we can do ourselves. I think the above described method could actually make for some really nice gameplay |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6502
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 04:51:46 -
[188] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Then let the stupid whine and complain, but don't change the game to accommodate stupid.
Whines and complaints look bad from the outside.
Who cares. These are players who do not grasp the fundamental nature of the game. When they show up and whine here on the forums players can tell them the fundamental nature of the game--i.e. you are responsible for the amount of risk you take on. Your actions determine the amount of risk you take on. Take imprudent or foolish actions you'll take on more risk. If this happens do not whine or complain, learn from it and become a better player.
Quote:They have a real effect on people's perception of the game even if they've never played it. If these 'stupid people' had a place they could be stupid, they'd be able to play eve and contribute to CCP. Eve is so much more to me than just a pvp game, and more people playing has positive effects for everyone, except maybe to some people's profits.
Most players do not visit the forums. Most players treat the game like any other MMO. Only the particularly butthurt show up and start threads like this. And note, the OP has gone completely AWOL. Either they quit...or realized how the game is and are now a bit embarrassed by making such a bad post. I hope it is the latter and that they even post and say they were wrong. I'd respect that, quite a bit actually.
Quote:Bringing it back to this thread, on balance does the decision to allow citadel owners the ability to revoke docking rights from people they have a contract with do more good than harm to player numbers. Keeping it maintains the current situation, of endless people finding out the hard way not to accept contracts to citadels. Removing it annoys people running these scams, but doubtful anyone else. Why not flip the power balance and make it so having a courier contract from a member of the citadel owning corp puts you on a temporary access list until the contract is done. That way once you accept a contract you can for sure get into the delivery point, assuming you don't die en route. Citadel owners would need to be careful putting up public contracts if they care about who gets into their citadel.
Trying to micro manage log in numbers and subscriptions by monitoring in game player behavior is a sure fire way to **** this game up more than you know. It will even bite you on your ass more than you know. CCP did fine and the numbers were good when nobody gave a **** about numbers. That is the key. Here is your noobship now **** off.
Let me be clear, IMO, EVE is known to be a harsh game with a steep learning curve. Making it more friendly and with a less steep learning curve does not seem to be working. In fact, it appears to be exactly the wrong recipe.
As for your suggestion I'm sure many would love to gain access to hostile citadels, especially in LS and NS. So no. And again no if you want to carve out special exceptions. We should follow the generality principle: when CCP makes a mechanic/rule it should apply equally to all. There should be no special exceptions for any sub group of players. Yes this is a variant of Malcanis' Law. You may not like it, but Malcanis' Law is pretty powerful and sweeping. When you create special dispensations for various sub-groups people will spend more time lobbying for such benefits vs. actually playing the game. Just don't ******* do it. It is bad policy. Both IRL and in game.
Treat everyone the same FFS.
Why is that such a bad thing?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6502
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 04:54:52 -
[189] - Quote
Aurelius Oshidashi wrote:If I were a hauler, I would keep a list of trusted citadels for deliveries. I would find out by contacting the corp owning it. If they scam me after all I would take revenge on them. If they are a powerful group their reputation would have been damaged at the least, but then I might have to take my loss.
Also like others say, if you're lazy, just only deliver to npc stations.
I agree with the comments on the first page that we shouldn't ask ccp to correct things we can do ourselves. I think the above described method could actually make for some really nice gameplay
Right. While contacting them will not be ironclad proof against scamming you keeping such a list will allow you to ignore them in the future. Putting that list on the forums and elsewhere where others can see it will make it even more effective.
And if you have enough friends...go shoot the damn thing. Heck ask around some might want to shoot it just because.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1420
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 07:22:24 -
[190] - Quote
This is what I got out of this thread
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
356
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 09:15:02 -
[191] - Quote
I can't believe this thread is going on. Should I link the lists that are already in Haulers Channel MotD? |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 09:31:34 -
[192] - Quote
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:I can't believe this thread is going on. Should I link the lists that are already in Haulers Channel MotD?
Tldr
It is a thread where the op is asking for a drop box that would allow direct deliveries to citadels. Perhaps there should be a module that can be installed or not on a citadel and can be turned off and on with a cool down timer between actions. It would still allow for the beloved courier scams to happen but would require a bit of more effort and timing from the scammer and would introduce the ability to actively counter a scam.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Salvos Rhoska
2939
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 09:47:10 -
[193] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Then why did you say "I am finally ready to go to null sec" in that post a few days ago. As in to move permanently.
I know you are very motivated to whitewash the HS/NS unadulterated material flood, but its not relevant to citadel scams.
The scam itself is fine. Its as trivial to avoid as it is for someone to enact.
Somekind of dropbox mechanic could be interesting if it works as a PvP driver, but realistically would launch in 2020 earliest, so better just learn to deal with what is.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Keno Skir
1619
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 10:38:05 -
[194] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:Khara Hirl wrote:The ability for someone to lock you out of a plex/citadel after accepting a courier contract, in my opinion is absolutely abuse of a game mechanic.
To me this is straight up mechanical abuse and the fact that CCP lets this type of activity go on, is absolutely disparaging to new players and disgusting to old players. This is NOT how to run a game, just because scamming is allowed doesnt mean you allow/design game mechanics to specifically allow scamming.
I have a solution and it's very very simple, allow couriers to right click their package with in 2500m of the citadel/plex and select deliver.
Why would CCP continue to allow this type of abuse, aren't you wanting new players to come into your game and stay? This isn't part of the whole "eve is hardcore, rah rah rah, get used to it rah rah rah, salt salt salt" Take this lesson to heart because you nearly killed your game by not listening to the silent majority but listening to the vocal minority when it comes to crap like this.
FIX DELIVERING TO PLEX/CITADELS IMMEDIATELY! See the thing here is Vets dont want new players to stay, thats why youre getting trolled. They know that really it shouldnt happened but hey they will argue against it, why well because they are trolling. See Vets dont like change, and the people here in this thread love trolling new players, and well ultimately driving them away from the game, hence why newbies leave. What you see here, sad as it is, is the worse part of the community, the angry part who really dont want to help but just like to troll the forums. So dont take it to heart just well ignore them tbh. They maybe right in what they say, but anger is their only way to communicate. Eve does that. But in your instance citadels and stations are player owned, they can do what they want, you actually probably didnt have access to it in the first place, if you see the 'might not be accessible' next contract proceed with caution, in fact don't even risk unless your damn sure you have access.Always always read contracts thoroughly 10x over if need be....
Did you just call everyone a troll, then give exactly the same advice we all gave? Don't take the risk unless you can ensure access?
Speaking as one of these horrible vets you mention, i and many others actually spend a substantial amount of time helping new players get to grips with EvE and it's many complex mechanics. Your comments are sweeping and baseless. I love seeing new players enter EvE, but i'm also aware it's not for everyone due to it's harsh nature. Some of us try to protect this harsh nature from the hand-holding crew, but it's a rediculous assertion to suggest older players "don't want" new players in EvE. We want new players more than most, because we love EvE enough to stick around for years.
I've explained how to easily turn the tables on the scammer three times so far in this thread, and all you can do is shout and scream that we're all secretly against new players. Pathetic.
Gimme Sake wrote:and would introduce the ability to actively counter a scam.
What like the one i've explained three times, just look back it's really easy..
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
628
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 10:40:14 -
[195] - Quote
"No matter how idiot proof you make something, there's always a bigger idiot just around the corner that will manage to break it"
This is so darn true isn't it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 11:11:55 -
[196] - Quote
This has been the case with null outposts for over a decade, why should the game change to protect people unwilling to take a loss when they take a risk? |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 11:24:07 -
[197] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:
What like the one i've explained three times, just look back it's really easy..
I understand your point about allowing citadel access.
But...
What some people in this thread advice is "The counter is simple, don't accept citadel contracts." That's like telling a new player don't go to null there are bubbles instead of advising him to fit a ceptor. That's a bear set of mind.
For every form of pvp in the game there is an active way to counter it. If you get baited you can surprise the baiter, if you get dropped you can counter drop, to avoid gate camps you fit a cloak and a mwd or organise a drop...etc.
The drop box suggestion is a way to turn a contract scam into an active pvp element that implies some risk for the emitter. Perhaps there are better mechanics to be implemented if given a bit of thought.
There are still the major trade hubs local chats for "risk free" shennanigans.
p.s. I can come up with the same argument, if you dont want to give everyone access to your stuff then don't emit public contracts.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:08:24 -
[198] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Keno Skir wrote:
What like the one i've explained three times, just look back it's really easy..
I understand your point about allowing citadel access. But... What some people in this thread advice is "The counter is simple, don't accept citadel contracts." That's like telling a new player don't go to null there are bubbles instead of advising him to fit a ceptor. That's a bear set of mind. For every form of pvp in the game there is an active way to counter it. If you get baited you can surprise the baiter, if you get dropped you can counter drop, to avoid gate camps you fit a cloak and a mwd or organise a drop...etc. The drop box suggestion is a way to turn a contract scam into an active pvp element that implies some risk for the emitter. Perhaps there are better mechanics to be implemented if given a bit of thought. There are still the major trade hubs local chats for "risk free" shennanigans. p.s. I can come up with the same argument, if you dont want to give everyone access to your stuff then don't emit public contracts.
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:20:56 -
[199] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This has been the case with null outposts for over a decade, why should the game change to protect people unwilling to take a loss when they take a risk?
but but but, it's high sec. High sec is supposed to coddle your ass and make you feel all warm and safe in a game about the harshness of space, death, destruction and epic backstabbing be relatively safe!!! |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:27:45 -
[200] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything.
Yeah I know, I don't haul so don't really care.
What bothers me is the lack of consequence for some actions and introduction of fail/risk proof mechanics; like magical structure invulnerability except for a short period when the loot fairy pops up on grid with a rabbit foot in her hand and starts shaking it, puppy leashes that also make ships magically invulnerable etc etc etc.
As far as I'm concerned if there is an amount of risk then it should reflect/affect on everyone. Otherwise it is just an overlooked exploit sustained by convenient arguments.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:28:22 -
[201] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
What some people in this thread advice is "The counter is simple, don't accept citadel contracts." That's like telling a new player don't go to null there are bubbles instead of advising him to fit a ceptor. That's a bear set of mind.
I don't know why you can't see the flaws in what you are saying, you used to be one of the clear thinkers.
Look at your own example. In that one you're telling the new player to take INDIVIDUAL ACTION (fit a ceptor) for their own benefit.
But with this courier stuff you are telling people "don't even try to take individual action" (like avoiding citadels while you still can), you are saying that the ONLY answer is CCP intervention (new mechanics/drop boxes), which would be just like telling a new player "if you want to go to null, don't, even interceptors can die, just beg CCP to magically teleport you and your asset to null sec"...
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:34:19 -
[202] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything.
Yeah I know, I don't haul so don't really care. What bothers me is the lack of consequence for some actions and introduction of fail/risk proof mechanics; like magical structure invulnerability except for a short period when the loot fairy pops up on grid with a rabbit foot in her hand and starts shaking it, puppy leashes that also make ships magically invulnerable etc etc etc. As far as I'm concerned if there is an amount of risk then it should reflect/affect on everyone. Otherwise it is just an overlooked exploit sustained by convenient arguments.
This answered my question. You don't like citadels to begin with, and that dislike is coloring your judgement and making you post things that make no sense.
That's why what you are saying looks so much like what the anti-ganker types say, because they are also responding emotionally to something they can't stand (not just ganking, but the idea that the activity doesn't have any risk for the ganker AND the false idea that ganking also negatively affects both new players and the general amount of players).
Put that emotion aside for a second and look at the things you are posting. I'm serious, go back to that one post and replace the word "Citadel" with the word "Catalyst" and read it to yourself again. You're too smart to be reacting this way. |
Tricia Killnu
The Horn
7
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:34:51 -
[203] - Quote
Or just you know blow up the citadel.
Sometimes you just have to realized you undocked and you suck. . .
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 13:06:44 -
[204] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything.
Yeah I know, I don't haul so don't really care. What bothers me is the lack of consequence for some actions and introduction of fail/risk proof mechanics; like magical structure invulnerability except for a short period when the loot fairy pops up on grid with a rabbit foot in her hand and starts shaking it, puppy leashes that also make ships magically invulnerable etc etc etc. As far as I'm concerned if there is an amount of risk then it should reflect/affect on everyone. Otherwise it is just an overlooked exploit sustained by convenient arguments. This answered my question. You don't like citadels to begin with, and that dislike is coloring your judgement and making you post things that make no sense. That's why what you are saying looks so much like what the anti-ganker types say, because they are also responding emotionally to something they can't stand (not just ganking, but the idea that the activity doesn't have any risk for the ganker AND the false idea that ganking also negatively affects both new players and the general amount of players). Put that emotion aside for a second and look at the things you are posting. I'm serious, go back to that one post and replace the word "Citadel" with the word "Catalyst" and read it to yourself again. You're too smart to be reacting this way.
No, I dont dislike citadels, only some mechanics that were introduced along.
The ganker argument is false. Gankers lose their ships in the process, lose security status and have to avoid local gate/station station police to travel. There is a consequence to their actions and there are ways to prevent or even counter being ganked.
The argument of antigankers is probably catalysts are cheap but so is replacing a retriever. I'm pretty sure a bot miner doesn't really care about losing a ship or two because the profit makes it inconspicuous. There's nothing that can't be solved in Eve through the hardening the f up and making another alt. This highly intelligent adaptive process is available to both gankers and miners.
Why do you keep comparing me with the antigankers?
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 13:13:06 -
[205] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
What some people in this thread advice is "The counter is simple, don't accept citadel contracts." That's like telling a new player don't go to null there are bubbles instead of advising him to fit a ceptor. That's a bear set of mind.
I don't know why you can't see the flaws in what you are saying, you used to be one of the clear thinkers. Look at your own example. In that one you're telling the new player to take INDIVIDUAL ACTION (fit a ceptor) for their own benefit. But with this courier stuff you are telling people "don't even try to take individual action" (like avoiding citadels while you still can), you are saying that the ONLY answer is CCP intervention (new mechanics/drop boxes), which would be just like telling a new player "if you want to go to null, don't, even interceptors can die, just beg CCP to magically teleport you and your asset to null sec"...
It is not me telling players not to take individual action; check the thread and see which posters have made that affirmation. "Avoiding scams is easy, don't take citadel contracts".
I only suggested that, instead of giving that advice maybe they should consider a change in mechanics.
In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 13:15:37 -
[206] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
No, I dont dislike citadels, only some mechanics that were introduced along.
The ganker argument is false. Gankers lose their ships in the process, lose security status and have to avoid local gate/station station police to travel. There is a consequence to their actions and there are ways to prevent or even counter being ganked.
You know, that, I know that, but that's not what they think and not what they say. Likewise you aren't taking into account a lot of 'costs' for the citidel scammers either. That's the point.
Quote: The argument of antigankers is probably catalysts are cheap but so is replacing a retriever. I'm pretty sure a bot miner doesn't really care about losing a ship or two because the profit makes it inconspicuous. There's nothing that can't be solved in Eve through the hardening the f up and making another alt. This highly intelligent adaptive process is available to both gankers and miners.
As is not taking courier contracts from citadels you can't trust, and/or using security alts etc etc.
Quote: Why do you keep comparing me with the antigankers?
Because you are doing what they are doing. The gankers say "there are no counters, therefore there is no option but CCP doing something about ganking". You said in this very thread that "the tools to counter are crap" and advocate a CCP intervention (dropboxes) rather than just telling people to be careful, read the warning pop up and play smarter.
I'll tell you like I tell the white knight anti gankers: I'm not trying to be mean to you, I'm explaining to you that i believe you're making a mistake. In your case (and unlike the anti-ganker types), while I don't think you will ever grow to love citadel mechanics, I do think you will eventually look back on this discussion and realize that what I'm saying to you is true. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 13:21:31 -
[207] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.
"There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant. That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers.
People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike.
You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like.
It smacks of hypocrisy TBH. |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
501
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 13:49:19 -
[208] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.
". That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers. People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike. You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like. It smacks of hypocrisy TBH.
There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant
You just mentioned a loss. Insignifiant YOU SAY, but a LOSS none the less.
SO it is YOU who the one who considers losing a catalyst insignifiant. Not me.
All your preconceptions about my posts come from comparing my arguments with antigankers' and that is all the demeanor of your posting. You want to divert an eventual debate about game mechanic exploits towards a certain zone oozing of subjectivity.
I can do that too you know. I can compare you with the people in the T3c rebalance thread where the supreme argument is CCPlease dun nurf mah pwnmobile.
Because basically that's what are you, your alts and other two or three players are trying to do in this thread:
Crying CCPlease dont nerf my scam mobile.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15896
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 14:30:43 -
[209] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.
". That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers. People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike. You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like. It smacks of hypocrisy TBH. "There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant" You just mentioned a loss. Insignifiant YOU SAY, but a LOSS none the less. SO it is YOU the one who considers losing a catalyst insignifiant. Not me. All your preconceptions about my posts come from comparing my arguments with antigankers' and that is all the demeanor of your posting. You want to divert an eventual debate about game mechanic exploits towards a certain zone oozing of subjectivity. I can do that too you know. I can compare you with the people in the T3c rebalance thread where the supreme argument is CCPlease dun nurf mah pwnmobile. Because basically that's what you, your alts and other two or three players are trying to do in this thread: Crying CCPlease dont nerf my scam mobile.
WTF is wrong with you man? You can't be serious. And you know I don't do scams (or ganking or other bad guy stuff). Hell, i don't do high sec at all.
And alts? Again, WTF man, I don't post on my alts here?, you think that the people telling you you are wrong about this are my alts? You think I'd stoop to doing the thing I laugh at others for doing?
You've known me on this forum for years, we've liked each others posts over and over, we've jointly confronted the whiney entitled losers who can't play a video game to the point of asking for help from CCP. You know better.
You really need to take a break, you're losing it.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
506
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 14:47:40 -
[210] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.
". That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers. People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike. You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like. It smacks of hypocrisy TBH. "There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant" You just mentioned a loss. Insignifiant YOU SAY, but a LOSS none the less. SO it is YOU the one who considers losing a catalyst insignifiant. Not me. All your preconceptions about my posts come from comparing my arguments with antigankers' and that is all the demeanor of your posting. You want to divert an eventual debate about game mechanic exploits towards a certain zone oozing of subjectivity. I can do that too you know. I can compare you with the people in the T3c rebalance thread where the supreme argument is CCPlease dun nurf mah pwnmobile. Because basically that's what you, your alts and other two or three players are trying to do in this thread: Crying CCPlease dont nerf my scam mobile. WTF is wrong with you man? You can't be serious. And you know I don't do scams (or ganking or other bad guy stuff). Hell, i don't do high sec at all. And alts? Again, WTF man, I don't post on my alts here?, you think that the people telling you you are wrong about this are my alts? You think I'd stoop to doing the thing I laugh at others for doing? You've known me on this forum for years, we've liked each others posts over and over, we've jointly confronted the whiney entitled losers who can't play a video game to the point of asking for help from CCP. You know better. You really need to take a break, you're losing it.
I'm not losing anything, I objectively stick on to a topic. You and others, and since it is the same subjective discourse you all employ I'm going to suspect alts at work, keep diverting it towards a different meaning. Lacking logical arguments and making comparisons only valid to your biased perspective.
If you don't scam why are you posting here at all?
My pov on this thread is debathing wether there's a risk element that affect both parties involved in a pvp activity. Simple and succint. Please bring up objective arguments that support the reason for which an involved party should be invulnerable and don't pull up subjective comparisons. The fact that we liked other posts means just that our opinions converged on other subjects but it doesn't mean they can't differ.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |