| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lord Zim
747
   |
Posted - 2012.06.01 07:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Yeah this is a great idea. Make 0.0 even less enjoyable to live in than it is already. I'm sure that will attract people to live out there in droves.
Pretty much this.
Every time Frying Doom is pushed on this, all he does is respond with "well that's just, like, your opinion, man!", even though he himself says that nullsec is more depopulated than it should be, and the risk vs reward aspect is broken. So he wants to fix that by making it riskier still, and expects that suddenly the hisec population will see that nullsec is a hardcore place and suddenly man up and go out there in droves.
I don't quite understand his logic, but that's why we keep getting these topics, because of people like himi, with his weird sense of logic. vOv |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 07:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So your argument is keep it for the same reasons the population is so low atm. 0.0 should be so much more than easy Pvp.
Unlike your and caliph's suggestions which'll depress the population even further? |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Maybe it should be kind of "tiered" - in terms of the lore it could be reasoned out as: high sec has the most infrastructure so has full local, lowsec/nullsec have less infrastructure so only have a constellation wide "local", wormholes have nothing (and love it)
I'd say that if we had to do a tiered type of local, then hisec has full local, lowsec has less infrastructure so only a constellation-wide local, NPC nullsec has none or constellation-wide local, WH has none, and conquered nullsec depends on what the occupying force has setup themselves. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:It would make Pvp harder but also more strategic as you would not be able to get instant information as to your oponents size for one thing
And you'll have tons of fleets missing eachother because their scout weren't in the right place, hence missed PVP opportunity.
Frying Doom wrote:and it would create a system that would favour the attentive rather than the current system that favours the lazy.
"Favour the attentive"? You mean the system which could potentially cut down the possible response time to as low as 4 seconds? Which could happen at any given time?
I think what you meant to say is "favours the ganker". |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Just block Lord Zim. He has never said anything of value. Ever.
I'm sorry you don't like hard things like "the truth" or "facts". vOv |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Forced by who? The CSM pushes it's own personal agenda. An agenda that is comprised of the entities that put them there. Seriously what rock have you been living under?
Still haven't gotten rid of that SHC paranoia, I see. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
The thread where you're arguing for no local while showing, quite unequivocally, that you don't even know how nullsec works in any way, shape or form? And the thread where caliph shows, quite unequivocally, that the only reason he wants that change (and he wants it in all parts of EVE, whereas you're just jealous of nullsec) is so he can gank more easily?
That thread? |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:wrong forum, do not pass go, do not collect $200 Strange I click on the link and it takes me to the forum titled "Grow some extremely durable genitalia." Were does your send you? Null bear land.
Let me help you. The link sends me to a thread (not a forum) in the following path:
Home -+ EVE Forums -+ EVE Communication Center -+ EVE General Discussion -+ Grow some extremely durable genitalia
Notice the bolded bits. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Kitfox Mikakka wrote:Well if the system won't be valid (IE, it doesn't need to be in Assembly Hall), what the hell makes you think it'd still use the same rules regarding numbers of likes and whatnot? Power of wishful thinking, I'm guessing.
Or just as good grasp of how rules work on the forum/with the CSM as in-game. |
| |
|