Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
hank boar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:12:00 -
[151] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Problem solved stay out of high sec and enjoy all of this in 0.0 real simple isn't it that it is already there yet hords of folks fail to see 0.0 as everything they ask for best of all gank all you want and no sec loss :)
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Quote:So when I say that initially, in hisec, of those who does notice that the corp is now at war, even fewer will bother to undock, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
We have to have a drab game because the least of us are so stupified as to not even know they are in war? This is going to blow your mind Zim, but those idiots deserve to die. Darwin.
Quote:And when I say that some of the people who are currently making a living in lowsec will probably stop doing so, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
Yes because you have no proof whatsoever merely , pessimistic projection.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Quote:And when I say that some (or a sizeable portion) of the people who are currently mining and ratting in nullsec will probably go back to hisec to make a similar amount of isk for vastly less effort, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
Risk versus reward. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. But more to the point you have no proof, just pessimistic projection.
Quote:Or do you actually assume that everyone'll just go "oh hey I get the wormhole experience without actually going to wormholes" and just trundle along as if nothing happened?
I don't really care. Thats like asking if Titans should be removed because those without them don't care for them. It comes down to preference I suppose. I'm not representing your side of the fence though im representing mine. Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict
Quote:Tons of killmails, in all security levels, would suggest otherwise.
Mostly random save for large scale conflicts between mutually accepting parties. Anyone who wishes to avoid conflict in EVE can do so with trivial ease do to local. And this comes with the cost of war being raised and no means whatsoever to enfore the conflict that was paid for. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:26:00 -
[154] - Quote
Removing local still offers no guarenteed form of conflict, but it does go a long way in allowing it to occur non consentually. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:27:00 -
[155] - Quote
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:31:00 -
[156] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.
Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. |
Katja Faith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
121
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:32:00 -
[157] - Quote
1. So remove local. I would just about guarantee the vast majority of the player base couldn't care less. I couldn't care one damn bit. But then, I know what I'm doing outside high. 2. Make any neutral participation in combat a VALID TARGET for all parties. THAT will end neut repping real damn fast. Screw the "flagging" non-sense: make them red for anyone to shoot.
ps: I should run for CSM. But then, I know what a complete farce it is and how much it's laughed at outside the large alliances that stack the deck. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:46:00 -
[158] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local?
The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local? The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"?
Did Swarm space become a wasteland or did less rewarding alliances become desolate? I'd wager the people who left didnt really want to be there to begin with and were only there because they had a secure spot to exploit an undue reward.
I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:53:00 -
[160] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote: Bottom line is this, there are other games, and maybe, just maybe, that's where they belong?
Have this small hint : EvE Online is not and never will be a PvP-game. Maybe it WAS one back in the days - i dunno, i had more important stuff to do back in the old days. But on every other aspect you're just about right. Removing us will both shrink and harm the universe, not to mention the financial impacts on CCP ;-). We are the freaking backbone of this game - you go ahead and try to walk with broken legs ... feel free to try.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.
Look it up, cretins.
Caliph Muhammed wrote: And without the pvpers the economy stagnates and dies
Caliph Muhammed wrote: contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members
Yep, someone who either bought his account or missed like 90% of the game during all these years is really upset about nothing here ... thats what we call a "troll", kids - now go ahead and laugh about the guy who actually claims that PvP is the main thing in EvE Online. Thats in so many ways hilarious - i dont even know where to start.
Oh and : please stay in highsec, nublet - its actually a good thing that you dont know shite about EvE. Enjoy flipping burgers at McDonals and cans in EvE while google'ing cool words and being an internet-superhero. I really hope you have fun while doing so. Dont bother trying to troll or attack me - i wont even read it. |
|
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:55:00 -
[161] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:57:00 -
[162] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time.
HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum.
Nullsec is the lawless boondocks of New Eden. Its a great addition to the game but its not its lifegiving breath.
Remove hisec and the same can't be said. Unless of course you're delusional enough to believe the "pubbies" in their humble hundred(s) man alliance without outside infrastructure are going to pay 15 a month to be permacamped in station (if there is one) by 8000 man alliances. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:04:00 -
[163] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. I'm just telling you exactly what the effects would be from removing local. If people wanted to be somewhere without local, they'd be in wormholes already, where the rewards are actually in line with the added risk/effort required to stay safe.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum. I didn't say "nullsec would collapse", we'd still be out there and shooting anyone trying to take over our space, there just would be less people who rat or mine there, and as such less people to actually gank while roaming. vOv |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
308
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:04:00 -
[164] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Luv2chat in local Good point, so take the OP instead as "showing up in local completely voluntary for all secs".
make it so you only show up after you've typed spmething in the channel ... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:06:00 -
[165] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. I'm just telling you exactly what the effects would be from removing local. If people wanted to be somewhere without local, they'd be in wormholes already, where the rewards are actually in line with the added risk/effort required to stay safe. No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum. I didn't say "nullsec would collapse", we'd still be out there and shooting anyone trying to take over our space, there just would be less people who rat or mine there, and as such less people to actually gank while roaming. vOv
Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite you. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:08:00 -
[166] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time.
I guess highsec would be overpopulated, sites were extremely boring (if available) and missions were the new, best thing - grinding in nullsec would be like trying to fly a 10/10 without Z0MGT3 ... massive balance-shifts would come, ultimately creating a carebear-Eve with even less action, less PvP and a world-of-shitecraft feeling everywhere. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:18:00 -
[167] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Whereas you do?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require logistics and a level of commitment most find unappealing. You say commitment: what do you mean by that?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite. =p If by "ganking" you mean "fly in alliance/coalition fleets in defense of our space", then yes. If by "ganking" you mean "roam around for ratters to kill", then no. |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:19:00 -
[168] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time. So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be.
Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:32:00 -
[169] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Whereas you do? Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require logistics and a level of commitment most find unappealing. You say commitment: what do you mean by that? Caliph Muhammed wrote:Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite. =p If by "ganking" you mean "fly in alliance/coalition fleets in defense of our space", then yes. If by "ganking" you mean "roam around for ratters to kill", then no.
Yes I will assert I have an understanding of human nature. I pay very close attention to words people write and the way there text statements sound when spoken. I was being a little facetious though. The game itself isn't hard to learn for anyone willing to "learn".
Because somehow when your awe inspiring mega fleet encounters a fleet 1/10th its size its more challenging than 5 on 10,15, or 20? |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:35:00 -
[170] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be. Don't you worry, I'd "hack it" just as well in nullsec as I do today even if local was removed.
Frying Doom wrote:Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for. Fresh coming from the guy who skipped corp because of a tiny wardec. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:35:00 -
[171] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be.
Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for.
Coming from a guy who dodges wardecs that IS pretty funny. eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be. Don't you worry, I'd "hack it" just as well in nullsec as I do today even if local was removed.
Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecessary game retarding protection. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:39:00 -
[173] - Quote
Why cant threads like this just die? Or just moved to an area of space where no one can see it? Oh wait.... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:40:00 -
[174] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecesary game retarding protection.
How does local protect you? eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:41:00 -
[175] - Quote
bongsmoke wrote:Why cant threads like this just die? Or just moved to an area of space where no one can see it? Oh wait....
Is there a particular reason you don't wish people to see honest discourse? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:42:00 -
[176] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecesary game retarding protection. How does local protect you?
Because all nonconsentual pvp can be avoided by docking up at the sight of another player in system. People could still dock up obviously but they wouldn't have a neon sign and a ringside bell telling them when to do so. |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:43:00 -
[177] - Quote
Though much was spoken, nothing was said. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:44:00 -
[178] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yes I will assert I have an understanding of human nature. If you do, then you're pretty good at hiding it.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because somehow when your awe inspiring mega fleet encounters a fleet 1/10th its size its more challenging than 5 on 10,15, or 20? I can provide you a broom if you require more straws to grasp. I'd love to see where you get the "1/10th its size", since most of the fleets we engaged were between 200 and up towards 900.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecessary game retarding protection. I don't live in null, I join fleets in null. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:45:00 -
[179] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because all nonconsentual pvp can be avoided by docking up at the sight of another player in system. People could still dock up obviously but they wouldn't have a neon sign and a ringside bell telling them when to do so.
So local automatically warps you to the station and docks you up? eh |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:46:00 -
[180] - Quote
Quote:risk averse nullbear Nice contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |